 |
 |
I think Ron Amundson's explication is accurate. In U.S. constitutional law, this approach to discrimination is known as "rational basis". It means that differential treatment of people with disabilities is NOT discrimination if (a) the state has an interest in treating disabled people differently (b) and the difference in the treatment is understandable The "rational basis" doctrine has most recently been cited by our Supreme Court Justice Scalia to claim that the practice of placing voting booths in wheelchair-inaccessible places is NOT discrimination because it's reasonable to avoid the effort of making polling places accessible. On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Ron Amundson wrote: > Hi, Osamu -- > > I think the sentence is badly expressed in English. The "and" should be > "when" or something similar. > > The idea is that a "provision, criterion, or practice" is not counted as > discrimination when two conditions are fulfilled. 1) it is objectively ... > by a legitimate aim, and 2) the means of achieving that aim are reasonable > and necessary. > > In other words, the practice is to be judged non-discriminatory when it has > a justifiable aim _and_ reasonable means of achieving that aim. If it has a > legitimate aim _but_ unreasonable means of achieving the aim it may still be > judged disriminatory. > > It's a badly written sentence, though. I'd suggest something like this: > > "A provision, criterion or practice shall not be judged to be discriminatory > when is is objectively and demonstrably justified by the State Party to have > a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are reasonable and > necessary." > > This might be used to defend preferential hiring practices (hiring quotas > for minorities or disabled people) against the charge of discrimination. > (Not in the U.S. of course. We have a fetish about quotas.) > > > Ron > > Ron Amundson > University of Hawaii at Hilo > [log in to unmask] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: The Disability-Research Discussion List > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Frank > Hall-Bentick > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 6:44 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Draft Convention > > > Nagase, > > My thinking on your question might by be explained in the following but > I'm not sure if it's right. > > "Discrimination does not include a provision, criterion or practice that > is > objectively and demonstrably justified by the State Party by a > legitimate > aim and the means of achieving that aim are reasonable and necessary." > > I do not understand the connection of > "and the means of achieving that aim are reasonable and necessary" to > the > rest of the sentence. > > > > Issue: People in wheelchairs want to fight in war at front line. > > Government chooses not to allow us - discrimination on the grounds of > our disability, disregarding of fact we can still shoot guns. > > The legitimate aim (their's not mine) would be to have soldiers who > could climb, run, jump, carry, lift, etc etc so the Governments means of > achieving the aim (exclusion by discrimination) would seem reasonable > and necessary to some. > > Regards, > > Frank > > NAGASE Osamu wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > The Working Group of the Ad Hoc Committee > > on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with > > Disabilities met from 5 to 16 January and produced > > the draft convention, which is to be submitted to the > > third Ad Hoc Com. meeting in May. > > The draft is availalbe at > > http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahcwgreport.htm > > So the negotiations are to begin seriously now. > > If you are interested in the detailed discusssions during the > > process, please visit Landmine Survivors Network, which > > has been doing a great job of taking notes at > > http://www.rightsforall.org/updates2004.php > > > > My posting is to ask clarification for the para. 3 of the draft artilce 7, > > on equality and non-discrimination, which states as follows; > > > > "Discrimination does not include a provision, criterion or practice that > is > > objectively and demonstrably justified by the State Party by a legitimate > > aim and the means of achieving that aim are reasonable and necessary." > > > > I do not understand the connection of > > "and the means of achieving that aim are reasonable and necessary" to the > > rest of the sentence. > > > > Any assistance is greatly valued. > > > > NAGASE Osamu > > University of Tokyo > > > > ________________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. > > ________________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.