|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
| SEARCH | SUBSCRIBE | ||
|
From January 24 - February
5 I attended seven sessions of the Fifth The main goal of the
convention participants is to lay down a framework that sets out what
approaches should be taken by states to ensure full human rights for
persons with disabilities. During
two sessions on January 24th I heard the delegates struggle with issues of
equality of treatment, measures to ensure it, the importance of using the
appropriate phrase to combat discrimination and the need to say what
language means in terms of practice. For example, supports to assure the
integration of persons with disabilities are not discriminatory and should
not be seen as creating separate or lower standards. Rather, they are
special measures taken to assure equality of treatment. On January 25th I heard the
delegates grapple with the legal rights of the disabled and the issue of
full legal capacity for all persons with disabilities. The delegates agreed
on the principle that there is no one with less legal capacity than anyone
else. However, they wrestled with the distinction between legal capacity
and the possibility of a disabled person to exercise that legal capacity
being dependent on appropriate supports. On January 27th the Chair
stated that there was consensus on recognizing disabled persons as persons
before the law, but that there was less consensus on the definition of legal
capacity. Historically disabled persons and other special groups have been
denied recognition and have been considered with children who have less
legal capacity due to age. Disabled persons, however, may have only less
capacity to communicate. They do not lack capacity, rather, they need
assistance to communicate. Supports must be based on the principle of
rights, disabled persons being subjects of rights, not objects of
protection. There is a need to de - link disability from capacity as non -
disabled persons often need supports in extraordinary situations to act
with legal capacity. A representative of the International Disability
Caucus noted that rather than guardianship, which denies legal capacity,
supports should be provided to enhance the disabled person's capabilities
so that the disabled person can exercise legal capacity. Specifically,
since legal capacity is often not in constitutions, States must be able to
use the convention text as a template. On January 31st the
delegates worked on the issues of violence and abuse, specifically, the
identification, investigation and appropriate prosecution of instances of
abuse and violence against persons with disabilities, and the availability
of protection services in such cases. The situation is complex due to
medical intervention being perceived as abusive when it is aimed at
correcting a condition perceived as a disability and non - abusive
when it is aimed at correcting a condition not related to the
disability, for example, appendicitis, and the disabled person is not able
to give consent. This relates both to the principle of access to health
care and to not tolerating a forced intervention but accepting the right
to health. The question of how persons with a disability can express their
consent relates back to the question of legal capacity. There is a
need for standards for consent and for increased focus on consent rather
than on forced intervention. The Chair stated that the convention could
resolve to either not refer to the issue of medical intervention at all or
to lay down a framework that sets out what the approach taken by states
should be. On February 1st the
delegates worked on the issue of access to information provided by the
mass media. They acknowledged the difficulty of defining mass media, the
fact that many services previously provided by the public sector have been
taken over by the private sector, for example, satellite TV stations.
The question is whether private entities should be required, encouraged or
urged to provide information to persons with disabilities. There was also
extensive discussion about the importance of sign language, the difficulty
in creating a unified sign language, and the relation of sign language to
freedom of expression. On February 3rd
representatives from the International Disability Caucus presented their
individual views on the importance of sign language as a human right for
deaf people, the obligation of the private sector to provide information
and services to persons with disabilities, the right to life, survival and
the development of the qualities a disabled person has, for example,
tactile possibilities, the difficulty in moving disabled persons and thus
the lack of mention of them in environmental or war plans, the need for
the convention to produce a text that does not limit rights but
gives disabled persons tools to expand their rights and actively promotes
their rights. In conclusion, the
Asian Pacific Forum stated that the convention is not just the expression
of highest hopes and aspirations but is also the means to give to practice
the highest expression of human rights and has the opportunity to raise
the bar of social standards and human rights.
|
