I would question that 'the right to be parents' on this issue. Because
parents do not have the right to say their children can not reproduce
when their children are at a legal age to reproduce, nor should they
have a right for their child to reproduce has any type of impairment.
This issue is also a male issue as males have also been sterilised
This is an eugenic debate and eugenics and its sister 'social biology'
has been discredited years ago.
Keith
>----Original Message----
>From: [log in to unmask]
>Date: 01/08/2008 8:34
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Subj: [DISABILITY-RESEARCH] Women with Disabilities Australia -
Response to Aust Gvt re Sterilisation and the CRC
>
>FYI.
>
>Please email the
>Australian Attorney General
>Robert McClelland MP
>[log in to unmask]
>
>to support WWDA's submission.
>
>Regards,
>
>Frank
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: WWDA
>To: WWDA
>Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 10:43 AM
>Subject: [afdomember] WWDA Response to Aust Gvt re Sterilisation and
the CRC
>
>
>
>
>Dear Colleague
>
>
>
>Please find attached for your information and reference, a copy of
the response from Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) to the
Australian Government regarding the Australian Government Draft Fourth
Report under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
>
>
>
>WWDA's response focuses on the issue of 'Sterilisation of Children
with Disabilities' (pg26, para 133 of the Draft Report) and raises
WWDA's concerns at some of the statements made in the Government's
Draft Report - specifically statements that infer that sterilisation is
acceptable for children with disabilities, and that prohibiting
sterilisation of minors (except in those circumstances where there is a
serious threat to health or life), will somehow adversely impact on
children with disabilities. WWDA's response rejects these presumptions
and expresses our concern with the integrity and scientific rigour of
such statements.
>
>
>
>WWDA's response continues to re-iterate our position that people with
disabilities have the same human rights as people without disabilities.
They have the right to bodily integrity, the right to procreate, the
right to sexual pleasure and expression, the right for their bodies to
develop in a normal way, and the right to be parents. WWDA also re-
iterates our recommendation that, through the Standing Committee of
Attorney's General (SCAG), all Australian Governments work together to
develop universal legislation which prohibits sterilisation of any
child unless there is a serious threat to heath or life.
>
>
>
>We would be grateful if you could circulate this email through your
networks as appropriate. WWDA's response is attached in both PDF and
Word formats.
>
>
>
>A copy of the Australian Government's Draft Fourth Report under the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is available from WWDA via
email ([log in to unmask]) or can be downloaded from the Attorney-
General's website at:
>
>www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Humanrightsandanti-
discrimination_ConsultationonDraftReportsunderConventionontheRightsoftheChildandOptionalProtocol-
2008
>
>
>
>Kind Regards
>
>
>
>Carolyn
>
>
>
>Carolyn Frohmader
>
>Executive Director
>
>Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA)
>
>PO Box 605, Rosny Park, Tasmania 7018
>
>AUSTRALIA
>
>Ph: +61 3 6244 8288 Fax: +61 3 6244 8255
>
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>Web: www.wwda.org.au
>
>ABN: 23 627 650 121
>
>
>
>
>
>PO Box 605, Rosny Park, 7018 TAS
>
>Ph: +61 3 62448288 Fax: +61 3 62448255
>
>ABN: 23 627 650 121
>
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>Web: www.wwda.org.au
>
>Mr Greg Manning
>
>Assistant Secretary
>
>International Security & Human Rights Branch
>
>Office of International Law
>
>Attorney-General's Department
>
>Robert Garran Offices
>
>National Circuit
>
>BARTON ACT 2600
>
>
>
>July 14, 2008
>
>
>
>
>
>Dear Mr Manning
>
>
>
>Re: Australian Government Draft Fourth Report under the
Convention on the Rights of the Child
>
>
>
>Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) Inc is the national peak
organisation representing more than 2 million disabled women in
Australia. For the past decade, WWDA has worked assiduously at a
national and international level to raise awareness of the ongoing
practice in Australia (and elsewhere), of the non-therapeutic
sterilisation of minors with disabilities. WWDA's work in this area has
been encouraged and endorsed by the UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights; UNICEF; and the Child Rights Information Network (CRIN). WWDA's
advocacy work has specifically urged all Australian Governments to work
together to develop universal legislation which prohibits sterilisation
of any child unless there is a serious threat to heath or life.
>
>
>
>In this context, I am writing to express WWDA's concern at the
information provided in the Australian Government Draft Fourth Report
under the Convention on the Rights of the Child in relation to
Sterilisation of Children with Disabilities (pg. 26). Specifically,
WWDA questions paragraph 133 (pg26) which states:
>
>
>
>133. A blanket prohibition on the sterilisation of children could
lead to negative consequences for some individuals, particularly
children with disabilities. Applications for sterilisation are made in
a variety of circumstances, not just to address the need for
contraception. Sometimes sterilisation is necessary to prevent serious
damage to a child's health, for example, in a case of severe menstrual
bleeding where hormonal or other treatments are contraindicated. The
child may not be sexually active and contraception may not be an issue,
but the concern is the impact on the child's quality of life if they
are prevented from participating to an ordinary extent in school and
social life.
>
>
>
>WWDA's concern is that sterilisation of minors be seen as a human
rights issue not a disability issue. The statement above infers that
sterilisation is acceptable for children with disabilities, and that
prohibiting sterilisation of minors (except in those circumstances
where there is a serious threat to health or life), will somehow
adversely impact on children with disabilities.
>
>
>
>WWDA rejects these presumptions and is concerned with the integrity
and scientific rigour of the statement. WWDA further questions how such
a statement encompasses the Rudd Government's commitment to 'work to
promote human rights and the fundamental equality of all people'
(McClelland 2008).
>
>
>
>For a number of years now, WWDA has articulated to the Australian
Government our position that:
>
>
>
> a.. forced sterilisation is an act of unnecessary and dehumanising
violence which denies a woman's basic human right to bodily integrity
and to bear children and which results in adverse life-long physical
and mental health effects;
>
>
> a.. sterilisation of women and girls with disabilities is a form of
social control in which a woman's right to bodily integrity is denied
often at the behest of parents and medical or other professionals, who
deem this bodily violation 'in her best interests';
>
>
> a.. sterilisation, an irreversible medical procedure with lifelong
physical, psychological and social consequences, if performed without
consent, is a gross violation of human rights;
>
>
> a.. sterilisation is a question for adulthood not childhood;
>
>
> a.. all Australian Governments must work together to develop
universal legislation which prohibits sterilisation of any child unless
there is a serious threat to heath or life.
>
>
>This position has been endorsed by over 100 Australian non-government
organisations through the recent Australia NGO Submission to the UN
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [1].
>
>
>
>WWDA is also concerned at paragraph 134 (pg26) of the Australian
Government Draft Fourth Report under the Convention on the Rights of
the Child which states:
>
>
>
>134. The Australian Government recognises that the obligations under
the Convention and potentially under the Disabilities Convention
require a consistent approach that ensures that children with
disabilities enjoy their rights on an equal basis with other children.
This needs to take into account the views of the child where these can
be ascertained and the best interests of the child consistent with the
Convention.
>
>
>
>WWDA is concerned at the use of the term 'best interests of the
child'. This statement is often used as a criterion to be satisfied
when considering authorisation of a sterilisation. However, the term
'best interests' often has little to do with the disabled girls rights
and more to do with social factors and the 'burden of caring'. As Dowse
& Frohmader (2001) point out:
>
>
>
>'In making judgments about best interests it is crucial that we are
clear about whose best interests are really at stake. We need to be
clear about whether 'best interest' is judged according to human rights
principles or whether the judgment is about the 'best compromise
between the competing interests' of parents, carers, service providers
and policy makers. To really determine 'best interest' for women and
girls with disabilities it is crucial to focus on the fact that a
person will be subjected to an irreversible medical procedure with life
long consequences without informed consent.'
>
>
>
>Sterilisation of children in the Australian context is related
primarily to two characteristics - gender and disability [2].
Sterilisation is a procedure that is notorious for having been
performed on young women with disabilities for various purposes ranging
from eugenics, through menstrual management and personal care, to the
prevention of pregnancy, including pregnancy as a result of sexual
abuse [3]. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of sterilisations and
certainly all the cases heard by relevant Australian courts and
tribunals, involve girls with intellectual disabilities [4].
>
>
>
>As Brady & Grover (1997) state:
>
>
>
>'Sterilisation for other non-therapeutic reasons is a response to
disability, not clinical medical need. It reflects persistent negative
attitudes towards fertility, menstruation and menstrual management in
girls with intellectual disability'.
>
>
>
>WWDA believes that the sterilisation of children with disabilities is
in contravention of both the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(CRPD). The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) explicitly
recognises that children with disabilities should enjoy all the rights
set forth in the CRC, on an equal basis with others. The Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), (which Australia is
soon to ratify), contains a number of articles which make explicit the
need for States Parties to take all necessary measures to ensure the
full enjoyment by women and children with disabilities of all human
rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with others.
>
>
>
>WWDA knows of no instances in Australia where authorisations to
sterilise have been sought for minors without disabilities in the
absence of a threat to life or health. The sterilisation of a child in
circumstances other than where there is a serious threat to the health
or life of that child effectively denies the child present and future
enjoyment of her or his human rights. Children with a disability have
the same right as children without a disability not to be sterilised.
>
>
>
>In its 2006 General Comment No. 9 on the Rights of Children with
Disabilities the Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed its
deep concern about 'the prevailing practice of forced sterilisation of
children with disabilities, particularly girls with disabilities.' The
Committee emphasised that forced sterilisation 'seriously violates the
right of the child to her or his physical integrity and results in
adverse life-long physical and mental health effects' [5]. The
Committee urged States parties to 'prohibit by law the sterilisation of
children on grounds of disability.' In considering Australia's report
under Article 44 of the CRC (Fortieth Session), the Committee on the
Rights of the Child encouraged Australia to: 'prohibit the
sterilisation of children, with or without disabilities.' [6].
>
>
>
>Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESC). The Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights in its 1994 General Comment No.5 on Persons with
Disabilities referred to the Standard Rules on the Equalization of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, adopted by the General
Assembly on 20 December 1993, stating that 'persons with disabilities
must not be denied the opportunity to experience their sexuality, have
sexual relationships and experience parenthood'. The Committee
emphasised that 'both the sterilisation of, and the performance of an
abortion on, a woman with disabilities without her prior consent are
serious violations of article 10 (2) [of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]' [7].
>
>
>
>People with disabilities have the same human rights as people without
disabilities. They have the right to bodily integrity, the right to
procreate, the right to sexual pleasure and expression, the right for
their bodies to develop in a normal way, and the right to be parents.
Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) Inc therefore re-iterates our
recommendation that, through the Standing Committee of Attorney's
General, all Australian Governments work together to develop universal
legislation which prohibits sterilisation of any child unless there is
a serious threat to heath or life.
>
>
>
>WWDA thanks the Attorney-General's Department for the opportunity to
provide our position on this matter.
>
>
>
>
>
>Yours sincerely
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Carolyn P Frohmader
>
>Executive Director
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>References
>
>
>
>Brady, S. & Grover, S. (1997) The Sterilisation of Girls and Young
Women in Australia - A legal, medical and social context. A report
commissioned by the Federal Disability Discrimination Commissioner for
the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Available online at:
www.wwda.org.au/brady.htm
>
>
>
>Dowse, L. & Frohmader, C. (2001) Moving Forward: Sterilisation and
Reproductive Health of Women and Girls with Disabilities, A Report on
the National Project conducted by Women with Disabilities Australia
(WWDA), Canberra.
>
>
>
>McClelland, R. (2008) Speech to the Attorney-General's Non-Government
Organisation Forum on Domestic Human Rights, Old Parliament House,
Canberra, Tuesday, 10 June 2008.
>
>
>
>
>
>Endnotes
>
>
>
>[1] Balgi, T., Pettitt, A., Schokman, B., & Lynch, P.
(2008) 'Freedom, Respect, Equality, Dignity: Action'. NGO Submission to
the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Australia.
Prepared on behalf of the Kingsford Legal Centre; the National
Association of Community Legal Centres, and the Human Rights Law
Resource Centre. (See page 89).
>
>
>
>[2, 3, 4] Brady, S., Briton, J., & Grover, S. (2001) The
Sterilisation of Girls and Young Women in Australia: Issues and
Progress. A Report commissioned jointly by the Sex Discrimination
Commissioner and the Disability Discrimination Commissioner at the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Available online at: www.
wwda.org.au/brady2.htm
>
>
>
>[5] Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment
No 9 (2006): The Rights of Children with Disabilities, UN Doc
CRC/C/GC/9 (2007). See: http://www.ohchr.
org/english/bodies/crc/comments.htm
>
>
>
>[6] Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding
Observations: Australia, UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add.268 (2005) [46(e)].
>
>
>
>[7] Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(1994) Persons with Disabilities: CESCR General Comment 5 (31).
Eleventh session, 1994. See: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.
nsf/0/4b0c449a9ab4ff72c12563ed0054f17d
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________End of message________________
>
>This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.
uk/disability-studies).
>Enquiries about list administration should be sent to disability-
[log in to unmask]
>
>Archives and tools are located at:
>www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web
page.
>
_________________________________________
Get up to 33% off Norton Security only from Tiscali - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|