-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Estey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 06 August 2002 13:41
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON A COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRAL INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON
THE PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE RIGHTS AND DIGNITY OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES.
DAILY SUMMARY OF MEETINGS
UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT, NEW YORK
August 3, 2002
Volume I, #5
Morning session
Commenced: 10:10
Closed: 11.40
There were no written government statements distributed at these sessions.
General debate proceeded on the format of the previous sessions, with NGO
expert introduction.
Civil and Political Rights
Stefan Tromel of the European Disability Forum introduced this topic with an
outline of the relevant rights as was reflected in the Mexico City
conference documents, available at
www.sre.gob.mx/discapacidad/whatrights.htm
The chair then opened up General Debate. Mexico noted that in this drafting
process, the purpose is not to go over all rights, but only those relevant
to the context of disability. The “UDHR should not be repeated.” Mexico
proposed document A/AC/265/WP.2 as a basis for discussion. Brian Burdekin
of the OHCHR requested and received permission from the chair to speak later
in the day. Chile called for a convention that contributes to the effective
legal rights of the disabled thus putting them on an equal footing with the
others.
The chair then called on NGOs to speak on the topic. They raised examples of
rights violations in their elaborations of how key provisions of the Civil
and Political Rights Convention (ICCPR) may apply in their respective issues
of disability.
Tina Minkowitz of Madre expressed support for the outline of applicable
ICCPR as introduced by Stefan Tromel. She highlighted the following rights
as particularly relevant from the point of view psychiatric survivors: 1]
the right to be parents and to parenting; 2] the right to life, particularly
given scientific developments identifying genetic patterns; 3] the right to
vote; and 4] the right to be free from any kind of involuntary confinement.
She emphasized on this last point “there is no reason for treatments” that
involve such confinement due to disability.
Richard Light of Disabled People’s International emphasized the need to
change attitudes and awareness .. including that “of those who are will be
involved in the elaboration of a convention.” Work done on behalf of
disabled people is not in and of itself an adequate qualification to
understand their very different worldview, surrounded as they are by
“oppression, exclusion, ignorance and disinterest.” He expressed regret at
the absence UNICEF in the proceedings, given the “particular vulnerability
of disabled children”, and over “some of the substantive work of the WHO
[which] has been deeply offensive to PWD. Some of the assumptions that lie
at the root of, and is perpetuated by their work on Daily Adjusted Life
Years and Quality Adjusted Life Years indicates the task before us”. He also
said that “I am extremely proud to be disabled, it is not my impairment that
disables me, but the attitudes …. of the non-disabled world.”
He highlighted several provisions of the ICCPR in a review of the human
rights abuses that disabled people are frequently subject to. 1] Article 1 -
self determination. Disabled people are denied the right to make basic
decisions about how they choose to live their lives and fulfill their roles
as citizens; 2] Article 6 - right to life. “The equivocal nature of views of
our very humanity.” 3] Article 7 - right to be free from torture and medical
experimentation without consent. This the most frequently abused right
according to their data collection, Light asserted. 4] Article 8 -
prohibition on forced labor. 5] Article 9 - everyone has the right to
liberty of person. 6] Article 10 - rules governing the treatment of
prisoners.
Kicki Nordstrom on behalf of the World Blind Union, focused on the
fundamental rights that the blind and visually impaired were denied access
to, based on the experiences of a membership of over 160 countries. These
included:
1] the right to be witnesses: there should be other ways to recognize their
ability to contribute in this area, yet blind people are “not trusted”.
2] the right to seek citizenship
3] the right to marry, have a family, raise children are denied in many,
many countries.
4] the right to education: in many developing countries, 80% of the disabled
are denied basic and fundamental education. “This is not due to our
impairment, we know we have this wish, it is simply a lack of trust that we
can be an equal part of society.”
Afternoon session
Commenced 3.20 pm
Adjourned 5.01 pm
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Brian Burdekin (OHCHR) called for attention to be paid to the “systemic
nature” of violations of human rights of PWD, as well as individual
violations. He noted that this is not just a matter of social prejudices but
have also become institutionalized into “bureaucratic practices.” This can
be a particular problem for “federal states” where federal laws or the
constitution uphold human rights, but states and/or provinces do not enforce
those rights in the case of PWD, thus denying them the right to equal
protection of the law. Mr. Burdekin hoped that future violations of human
rights could be dealt with in terms of prevention or early intervention. He
noted that discrimination and marginalization of PWDs often has its roots in
“customary practices.” Issues such as housing, health, and education
should be addressed as human rights issues rather than as welfare or social
policy issues.
In a statement, made available on both hard copy and diskette, Denmark on
behalf of the EU and associated countries stressed that the human rights of
PWDs are “universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated,” as
set forth in the 1993 Vienna Declaration. The EU raised both civil and
political rights, of liberty, association, and political representation, as
well as economic, social and cultural rights. The legal instrument should
include “inter alia, active participation and involvement of persons with
disabilities in all spheres of life.” The instrument should contain
“general principles including mainly equality and non-discrimination” rather
than “create new international legal standards.” The EU hoped to see more
participation by states, PWDs, civil society, national institutions and
others, in order to allow the Ad Hoc Committee to consider more detailed
proposals at its next session.
Norway said that access to political debate and voting by secret ballot will
allow PWDs to participate in changing policy. Barriers to the enjoyment of
such rights, such as physical and informational barriers, would need to be
removed, in order to ensure that political rights are available to all. The
removal of such barriers is particularly important for people with
intellectual disabilities. Norway cited the steps taken by Uganda to
integrate PWDs into political processes as exemplary. It also wished to
associate itself with the statement of the EU.
Brazil cited General Comment #5 (1994) of the Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, as reflecting an approach that should be explored by
the Ad Hoc Committee as well as other, existing, human rights treaty bodies.
Any new instrument must strengthen existing human rights standards, avoiding
“duplication or overlap.”
The United States believed that all individuals should be able to enjoy all
human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination. In pursuing a
multi-pronged approach with a new, narrowly crafted instrument, acts or
omissions that should be considered as acts of discrimination should be
clearly listed. For example, such a listing might include imposing
physical, technological or informational barriers, or failing to take
positive actions to remove such barriers. The US would not advocate amending
existing treaties, but called for strengthening them and mainstreaming
disability, at the same time as formulating a new instrument that focuses on
the challenges and obstacles faced by PWDs.
South Africa called for a clear definition of discrimination on the basis of
disability as the Committee began to elaborate the elements of the
convention. Mexico said that inclusion and non-discrimination posed the
greatest challenges to PWDs within the field of economic, social and
cultural rights. In drafting a new convention, states must go beyond the
“assistance mentality’ and ensure that “the international community avoids
once and for all feelings of pity for PWDs.” General Comment #5 (1994) of
the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultrual Rights, indicates that states
must engage in a “cultural shift” and do more than refrain from adopting
measures that could have negative implications, but instead support the
progressive realization of ESCR. Additional resources are required for many
countries, and the issue is one of “development.” PWDs must have access to
educational systems “which they choose themselves” at all levels. PWDs need
to have the greatest possible degree of autonomy and independence in
realizing their right to health.
The Philippines argued that globalization has led to concentrations of
wealth that have further marginalized PWDs. In practice, globalisation
favoured developed countries. Because the situation of PWDs in developing
countries they should be given ample opportunities to participate in the
development of international and national policies, and given adequate
opportunities to manage themselves. In an effort to “concretise” the
discussions, the Philippines appealed to developed countries to commit at
least 10% of overseas development aid -- reflecting the proportion of
disabled people in the world today -- to ensuring the enjoyment of economic,
social and cultural rights by PWDs.
Jamaica also highlighted the situation of PWDs in developing countries,
pointing out that many PWDs live below the poverty line. Although the
situation in each country is different, PWDs must be educated on their
rights, and this cannot be done without the assistance of those at the
grassroots level.
Uganda supported the proposal that awareness-raising about the human rights
of PWDs be done in local communities. It appreciated the US suggestions on
the elements of a potential convention and state obligations to implement a
convention. It also appreciated the EU’s comment that PWDs must be involved
in the process, and hoped that the Ad Hoc Committee will involve relevant
human rights treaty bodies, special rapporteurs etc., in developing a
proposal for examination by the Committee. In keeping with the right to
information, Uganda proposed that, from this point onward, all government
delegations providing written statements also provide copies on diskette, so
visually impaired people can access the “rich information” that is being
provided. This would demonstrate the good faith of states in their
commitment to accessibility. Uganda also proposed that the UN Secretariat
do more to accommodate the needs of PWDs, particularly those needing to use
assistive devices.
Thomas Lagerwell from Rehabilitation International (RI) spoke of the need to
obtain more accurate statistics for use by the Committee in undertaking its
deliberations. With regard to the full enjoyment of economic, social and
cultural rights, he pointed out that many people with “chronic diseases” or
“medical disabilities” are not recognized as PWDs, and even when they are,
they are often discriminated against due to a lack of public awareness. For
instance, children with psoriasis are often not allowed to participate in
sports because of fears that their condition might “disturb” the other
children. A large group, they can also be subjected to multiple forms of
discrimination, for instance on the basis of gender. For those PWDs in
developing countries, the challenges to full enjoyment of economic, social
and cultural rights are even greater.
The Representative from the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) urged that
deaf people be guaranteed their right to language “first and foremost,” in
order to access all other human rights. Without recognition of sign
language as an official sign language by states, deaf people can be denied
their rights to education and information, as well as other human rights.
This issue was also raised by Kicki Nordström, President of the World Blind
Union (WBU), who stressed the importance for blind, deaf/blind, and
sight-impaired people who use Braille as a main means of accessing
information critical to the exercise of other rights.
Tina Minkowitz from Madre reiterated the indivisibility of civil and
political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. The deprivation
of civil and political rights for those labeled as having psychiatric
disabilities detrimentally impacts their ability to seek and enjoy the full
range of economic, social and cultural rights. In turn, deprivation of
these rights can mean that people in need of assistance are less likely to
ask for help.
Speaking on behalf of the Landmine Survivors Network (LSN) Adnan Al Aboudy
said that support for the human rights of landmine survivors is crucial in
expediting their reintegration back into society as full and equal
participants, and that this is not “charity”. He noted though that many
PWDs are unaware of their rights, and therefore are hindered in seeking full
enjoyment of them.
The Chair announced that the following groups were expected to participate
in the panel tomorrow (Tuesday), chaired by the Special Rapporteur for
disability, Bengt Lindqvist: Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(DESA), Division on the Advancement of Women (DAW), Population Division,
Statistical Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR), UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), International Labour Organization
(ILO), and the World Health Organization (WHO) (represented by the Pan
American Health Organization). Gerard Quinn would participate in his
capacity as an expert.
The Disability Negotiations Daily Summaries are published by the Landmine
Survivors Network, a US based international organization with amputee
support networks in six developing / mine affected countries. LSN staff and
consultants contributing to these summaries include and Zahabia Adamaly, MA
([log in to unmask]), Katherine Guernsey, JD
([log in to unmask]), and Janet E. Lord, LLB (editor)
([log in to unmask]). Any questions or concerns relating to the
Summaries should be directed to Janet Lord.
________________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.
|
