Category Archives for Ratification

Advocating a bold attitude

Malay Desai

At a time when self-promotion is second nature to many and earning print space often requires desperate efforts, we are surprised to meet 42-year-old Nilesh Singit. The kurta-clad disability rights activist, appearing more like a JJ School of Arts student, flatly refuses to be interviewed, citing ‘typical’ treatment meted out to the disabled in ‘such’ articles. We agree, many stories of differently-abled people are either too sympathetic or overtly glorifying, but assert that we won’t veer in either direction.

“Things are blown out of proportion, a small achievement is written as ‘overcoming all odds..’ he tells us later, having agreed after a mediator’s word. So here are some facts about Singit’s life, with the least usage of superlatives: Nilesh belongs to a large joint family hailing from Karnataka but has grown up in Mumbai. The cerebral palsy (a group of movement disorders caused by damage to the brain before, during or just after birth) he was born with was nearly invisible for his siblings and cousins whom he shared a close-knit childhood with. At his school (special one for persons with disability – PWD, an idea he’s against) and later, his inclusion factor wore off a bit. “Over the years as a PWD and as a rights advocate, I have realised that things come in packages of advantages and disadvantages. I have come to accept it, why rue it? Those who ‘acquire’ disability have difficulty accepting it,” he feels, likening himself to a person ‘who failed the medical test by a whisker and could not pursue his/her dream of being an air force pilot.’ Surely a perspective we haven’t heard before.

It’s this attitude (and the eloquence in conveying it) that we quite relish, despite his career having enough to gush about. Once before getting on to a flight, Singit was asked for his medical certificate, which he didn’t have. A doctor was called, who then proceeded to ask him questions, to which Singit interrupted and stopped short of lambasting him and the crew, before making his way into the flight. Turned out that the doc was asking questions related to Down’s Syndrome. “Where’s your certificate?” Singit asked them back.

His flamboyance may have to be tucked in at various moments though, as he’s working in one of the most challenging sectors of the government – advocacy. As a research officer at the Centre for Disability Studies, Nalsar University (Hyderabad), he writes papers, conducts audits and litigates for the betterment of PWDs in India, and not all people he meets are smooth to deal with. “I’ve been caught up quite a number of times in what is termed as ‘friendly fire’. I always carry a white hanky,” he claims, tongue firmly in cheek.

That said, those who know Singit well don’t really risk not taking him seriously as the man has arrived at this position after much experience in the field. An MA in Literature, he pursued disability studies and went on to play several key roles in the field – trainer, advocate of rights and researcher being some. “There is a dearth of writings on disability; as an access audit consultant I found that even though there are tonnes of data on universal design, there is not much on adaptation and customisation for an individual’s needs,” he informs. Of course, being a PWD himself was a great influence in advocating for the UNCRPD (UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities), an international instrument that provides PWD with the same human rights as everyone else, which is sanctioned by India. “Disability studies are the way to get the PWD in command of his/her environment and life,” he admits.

His strong opinions and voices for and against all things perfect and imperfect come out unfiltered through his writings on the web. His blog, ‘Disability News Worldwide’ is replete with informative, transformative, even evocative posts. Another blog carries his rant against the Lokpal and an old ‘open letter’ to Shah Rukh Khan, while his social network profiles bear pointers to the range of work he’s accomplished and waiting to do. But it is only after hearing his plans do we judge him as a passionate writer: “I regret not having written as much as I ought to have. I think I have in me a book or two I’d like to begin writing sooner than later.”

“I would rather write than be written about,” he says of his above mentioned reluctance, explaining that the very act of overcoming the stereotype sometimes reinforces the stereotype. We don’t know if this article would make the cut with him, but we sure have returned more insightful after having met him.

(An initiative of Trinayani, a nonprofit NGO founded by Ritika Sahni, the THIS ABILITY articles celebrates the intriguing lives of persons with disabilities. Trinayani works towards Disability Awareness and Support, communicating through workshops/seminars, print, radio, films and other electronic media.  Visit www.trinayani.org or write to us at trinayani.contact@gmail.com)

The Articles in the Series “This-Ability” are copyrighted material of Trinayani.  This Blog is carrying the series on the request of Ritika Sahni, Founder Trinayani.  Any queries or request to publish these articles please contact Ritika Sahni. The owner of this Blog is not responsible for any copyright infringement

Nilesh Singit

Govt slow to clear hurdles in making city disabled-friendly Despite Law, Little Effort Made To Make Buildings, Buses, Trains Accessible

Mahima Sikand | TNN

Well-meaning laws have seldom changed the ground reality in India, and when it comes to disability legislations, things are no different. Despite a legal mandate to create friendlier infrastructure for the country’s 70 million people with disabilities, governments have done precious little. In Mumbai too, the design reform has been painfully slow in the coming.

Activists claim that almost all government buildings in the city disregard the needs of people with disabilities. ADAPT, a group working on accessibility rights for disabled people, conducted an audit of government buildings and facilities and discovered shocking lapses everywhere.

The Bombay high court did not have a disabled-friendly toilet until 2005, when some orthopedically challenged litigants brought the issue to its attention. Barring a few big names like JJ Hospital, most government hospitals do not have ramps at the entrance or elevators inside. And those that do have elevators do not have Braille buttons in them for visually impaired people. There are less than a dozen disabled-friendly public toilets in the city. The law requires audio-visual traffic signals for the benefit of blind and deaf people; yet, only the signal outside the office of the National Association of the Blind in Worli has the facility.

“When the government is flouting all regulations, it obviously has no right to expect private players to toe the line,” says Dr Anita Prabhu, co-chair of ADAPT.

No wonder, then, that the buildings that have come up over the last 15 years do not conform to the law. “It is understandably difficult to modify existing structures but what is the excuse for the constructions that have come up after 1995, when guidelines were legally mandated,” says Nilesh Singit, a disability rights activist.

Activists point out that the inability to commute is the biggest handicap for a physically challenged person, restricting his movement and his potential. “Today, the law requires 3% reservations for people with disabilities. But, even if someone gets a job, can he truly manage it if travelling to the workplace is such a challenge,” says Javed Abidi, a disability rights activist and director of the National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP).

In 2009, hearing a PIL, the Bombay high court directed Central Railway and Western Railway to work out ways to make stations and trains accessible to people with disabilities. Two years later, barring a few major stations, most do not even have basic ramps. “Despite the court order, it is still impossible for a disabled person to travel by a local,” says Nilesh Singit, one of the litigants in the case.

Most railway stations in the city have over-bridges to enter and to travel between platforms, which make them inaccessible for wheelchair users. Even if the platform is somehow reached, it is impossible to board a train because of the difference in level and because of the gap between the platform and the train. “The authorities need to flush the trains with the platforms. This is a difficult task since different stations are of different height, but this is where planning would help. The Delhi Metro is a good example. Sadly, even the newer stations in Mumbai have no provisions for the physically challenged,” says Prabhu.

Even buses score dismally in this regard. In 2003, the BEST acquired 30 buses, which it claimed were disabled-friendly. Today, only a few of these are running. “When we were conducting an audit of BEST buses, so many of my colleagues who are disabled told me that it was the first time they had entered a bus. Almost no one in a wheelchair has ever travelled in a local train. That’s how bad the situation is,” says Prabhu.

Clearings Access

Under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the government and local authorities must

  • Install auditory signals at traffic signals on public roads for visually handicapped people
  • Create curb cuts and slopes on pavements for easy access of wheelchair users
  • Engraving on zebra crossings for the blind and for people with low vision Have Braille symbols and auditory signals in elevators Engraving on the edges of railway platforms for the blind and for people with low vision
  • Devise appropriate symbols of disability Install warning signals at appropriate places
  • Build ramps in public buildings
  • Adapt toilets for wheelchair users

Times Of India, Bombay

Differently-abled, academicians discuss rights and inclusion

AHMEDABAD: The perception of a differently-abled person has undergone a great change in last decade with more and more such persons coming forward to assert their rights and be included in the mainstream. This was the underlying thread of the one-day convention on guidelines laid down by United Nations (UN) for rights of the differently-abled, conducted by Indian NGOs working in the sector.   Unnati Organization for Development Education and Blind People’s Association (BPA) organized a programme to present pilot case studies that documented action research projects for the differently-abled at Ahmedabad Management Association (AMA) on Friday.

"A joint regional consultation was organized to present, discuss and learn from existing programmes and practices promoting inclusion. The process involved leading disability activists, practitioners, corporate employers, persons with disabilities, donors and academicians," said a BPA official. 

"It was a special experience learning about the aggravation of disability due to conflicts in society. We would not have thought of it If we did not have this opportunity to meet the differently-able from areas like Jammu and Kashmir and discussing that law has to be subservient to people and consider what people require" said Dr Amita Dhanda from UNCRPD, a UN body for rights of differently-abled. Dhandha was member of drafting committee of the new disability law.   Kanubhai Shelar, 61, a differently-abled person and participant at the event, said that the direct sharing of opinions to guide the disabled was a great experience.

Times of India

Let Us ACT Together!

Article on Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act working draft

From its very conception, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act has been fraught with controversies; quite a surprising situation given that most factions fighting for disability rights in the nation supposedly desire to present a united front. India, having signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) in October 2007 with astounding alacrity, took almost three years to decide to draft a new piece of legislation, instead of bringing about over 100 amendments to the existing The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act of 1995, to align laws in the country with international obligations.

The recent past has seen a flurry of activity in the written media about the working draft of the Act that was released on the 20th of November, 2010. As is the situation in case of every decision dealing with a great number of people with divergent ideas, this draft too has come under fire on several grounds and has received bouquets as well. The only crucial factor, however, is that the draft, termed as a working draft seeks not to be a decision, but a deliberative instrument meant to change as substantive suggestions come in.

One of the principal opponents of the law, Mr. Javed Abidi, Convenor of the Disability Rights Group, is of the opinion that the current draft legislation is, in entirety, against the letter and spirit of the UN CRPD. His opinion is based on the belief that the voices of persons with disabilities went unheard in the drafting process and that the Committee set up to draft the law is inept and displays a lack of “brain trust”. He has made it clear that in his belief, the Committee has lost any faith that he had in it and that it, along with the legal consultant, ought to be dismissed. Taking a strongly opposing stance, Mr. Prasanna Pincha, Special Rapporteur at the National Human Rights Commision, in his open letter detailing his opinion of the draft on first reading, states that “the working draft, in a certain sense, is way more radical/progressive than even the UNCRPD.” He goes on to congratulate the Committee and the legal consultant for executing the task of drafting such landmark legislation “with remarkable sensitivity and alacrity”.

Mr. Abidi insists that expert knowledge and the requirements of persons with disabilities have been disregarded time and again by the legal consultant, Dr. Amita Dhanda, and the Committee. On the other hand, the legal consultant informs that sub-groups had their deliberations with the legal consultant after consulting with larger civil society. These opinions were proactively obtained by committee members, for example on women with disabilities, even whilst in consultation with the legal consultant. The duty to seek opinion of civil society was on Committee members’ not the consultant; it was a duty which the members fulfilled in both letter and spirit. Another source who was intrinsically involved in the drafting process and worked on accessibility points out that the civil society has been involved throughout. The one meeting in September where the civil society was invited, “they derailed the entire process”. Also, the chair was always open to suggestions via e-mail. Mr. Mahesh Chandrasekhar, Advocacy Coordinator at CBR Forum opines that the manner in which the draft law has been published without any explicit statement soliciting civil society participation facilitates the creation of a situation where “the few people who have been in someways [sic] connected to the members of the committee are somehow trying to be engaged in this process”

It is, however, interesting to note that the very idea behind having a working draft is to listen to the suggestions of experts and concerned parties and make changes if required. The first explanatory note stating that “this working draft has been put together so that the Committee, the Disability sector, the larger civil society and the duty bearers can through a process of dialogue and deliberation arrive at a draft which can be accepted by all” seems like an explicit enough solicitation of expert opinion and civil society participation. It seems unwise to squander such an opportunity, basing one’s arguments, against the fruit of eight months’ worth of effort of numerous individuals, on grounds such as the fact that the Committee met for short hours with long gaps of forty days in between and that it was “lazy”. While much of the criticism leveled against those involved in drafting the law may be justified, one wonders whether it makes a substantive difference in ensuring there exists robust disability rights legislation within the nation. Given the parallels being drawn between the drafting process of the UN CRPD and that of the draft law under discussion, it would perhaps be pertinent to highlight the united efforts of the disability sector in the case of the former to present constructive criticism. The remarkable contribution of disability rights groups in the framing of the UN CRPD came from a conscientious attempt to criticize effectively and provide feasible alternatives. It certainly would be preferable if those criticizing the current working draft had substantive changes in mind and alternatives to offer, as was the case during the drafting of the UN CRPD. While much has been said about representatives who weren’t allowed a say in the drafting of the law, the fact that deliberations on the working draft are on and this is the ideal time to send in any substantive or structural changes that one would want to see in the draft seems to be ignored.

A question that has gained prominence of late is the suggestion of a Disability Code with dedicated legislation for special situations and for authorities such as the Disability Rights Authority. The suggestion was made for several reasons, such as the requirement of dedicated legislation that details the functioning of important bodies like the DRA and the constraint in space if an all encompassing law was to be drafted. Critics claim that this is against the wishes of the disability sector and is legally not viable while Dr. Dhanda states that it is a mere suggestion that arose out of practical discomfort and that it would effectively deal with issues of reconciling inherent differences and also allow for greater detailing to define the accountability of the DRA or rules governing it, etc. Mr. Pincha also wholly endorsed the concept, affirming that “common law to address commonalities, and specific laws, to address specificities depending on need and necessity” is what is required. A meeting held by CBR Forum in Bangalore on the 20th of December simply concluded that the idea required further discussion on public forums. All that this goes to show is that various shades of opinion exist within the disability sector and constructive suggestions and open discussions alone can hope to solve the deadlock one seems to notice forming. What effort has, thus far, been expended at criticizing issues that can neither be mended nor bear any consequence to the progress of the law, could perhaps now be used constructively to build on the foundation that the working draft sets.

It has been said quite succinctly that “There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted.” One cannot help feeling that those advocating unity amongst and justice for the 70 million people with disabilities in India are the very same stalwarts who leave the sector fragmented. It is, perhaps, time for sincere attempts at reconciliation and for real and substantive criticism, if this landmark piece of legislation detailing the rights of the aforementioned 70 million people is to finally materialise.

Anindita Mukherjee


http://news.oneindia.in/feature/2011/01-04-rights-of-person-disability-act-draft-part1.html


http://news.oneindia.in/feature/2011/01-04-rights-of-person-disability-act-draft-part2.html


Initial comments and observations on the new draft law

Of late, I have finished taking a quick and cursory look at the new draft law (the working draft as it has been aptly described) which has been updated following conclusion of the last two-day meeting of the new law committee constituted for the purpose of developing a new legislation to replace the existing PWD Act.

I have been receiving any number of telephone calls from friends and activists in the disability sector requesting for my personal and initial views/comments/observations. In view of this, I hereby take this opportunity to share my initial comments/observations/views with three riders: namely, that these views are mine and that they do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization/institution that I may be associated with; That I reserve the right to express further comments/views ETC.; and, that, these views/comments are based, as stated above, on a very quick and cursory reading of the latest working draft and that I need to read the same with greater circumspection, and in greater details.

My immediate and intimate feeling on completing the first quick and cursory reading of the said working draft is that it is not a document speaking for persons with disabilities, it is persons with disabilities speaking for themselves. I wish to whole-heartedly compliment all concerned including my highly esteemed friend Dr. Amita Dhanda under whose active and able guidance her spirited team at Nalsar have put together a brilliant masterpiece of a draft following receipt of inputs from the new law committee. I must also congratulate the Committee chairperson Sudha Kaul and all the members of the committee for the hard work they put in and also for the generosity and cool-headedness demonstrated by them even in the face of all kinds of discombobulations. To my mind, the keenness of the committee and also of the legal consultant in valuing interactive dialogue with the sector is above board.

The depth and intensity of the vision of the working draftcan be better appreciated and felt as one runs through its pages with unqualified openness and unquestionable objectivity.

All this, however, is not at all to suggest that I do not have differences or disagreements at all. Yes, in places, the working draft appears to be overly radical, almost oblivious of ground realities, especially, in respect of  legal capacity to act in relation to persons belonging to certain specific categories of disabilities. Yes, it seems to have become a little too bulky and voluminous, and even unwieldy. Yes, the language and the format perhaps needs fine-tuning in order to ensure that it becomes legally and legalistically more sound.

I would also like to express my satisfaction over the fact that some of my suggestions put forth by me verbally to the person concerned only on the basis of taking a look at  some portions of the first draft brought out on the 20th of the last month have been taken care of in the current draft. These include insertion of a reference to UNCRPD in the Preamble, use of the expression “lifting/eliminating the barriers”,  in place of the expression “lowering the barriers” ETC.

Having said the foregoing, I would like to make the following initial observations/comments in an attempt to facilitate further critical and constructive reflections

  • Legal capacity:  I favour the adoption of the minimalist model of legal capacity which, among other things, must recognize all persons with disabilities as persons before the law on an equal basis with others and also recognize legal capacity of persons with disabilities together with provision for support for whosoever needs that support. Such support should only be for the period, and, to the extent needed by the person concerned. Provisions for safeguards against any possible abuse of support and other relevant matters must be duly incorporated. To my mind, complete and explicit elimination of substitutive support in respect of legal capacity to act in relation to persons belonging to certain specific categories of disabilities  may not be fair and proper. Certain specific condition of certain persons may warrant substitutive support. Experience tells us that some persons in some situations or condition may not even be able to nseek support all by themselves. They b need support even to seek support. Provision only for non-substitutive support for all situations and conditions is replete with danger. Imagine a situation assuming that there is absolutely no provision for substitutive support — What happens if a supporting person/network commits a serious lapse resulting in irreparable and substantial loss to the concerned person with disability, and then takes the plea that the decision was his (concerned disabled person’s), and that the supporting person/network was only supporting that concerned disabled person in taking the decision but the ultimate decision was his. Thus, the supporting person/network may get away with impunity.  To my way of thinking, legal capacity has two components, namely, that one is recognized as a person before the law, and that one is presumed to have the ability and the maturity to comprehend the nature and possible consequences of a given action. In a situation of this ilk, one just can’t have the cake and eat it too. Besides, despite absence of criminal intent, how does a person with very profound intellectual/developmental/psychosocial disability accused of an offence  take recourse to the plea of Mens Rea when the full legal capacity to act of such a person is recognized necessarily though unjustly and erroneously implying that he had the ability and maturity to comprehend the nature and possible consequences of the action she/he might be accused of? I feel that each one of us, regardless of ability or disability may need substitutive support as well. Assuming, (not admitting), that I am in a state of coma and the surgeon concerned has to perform on me a critical surgical operation which may prove fatal. Someone close to me has to decide for me. Is this not substitution? If not, what else is? For such and other like reasons, I feel that while there should be explicit provision for making all-out efforts to promote non-substitutive support, substitutive support need not and should not be altogether done away with.
    The UNCRPD also talks about support wherever such support is needed; and support can be both substitutive and non-substitutive; Otherwise, what prevented the framers of the UNCRPD to impose an explicit and  blanket ban on substitutive support? While it is all right to be surcharged with idealism, it would be prudent if the working draft reflects a more judicious combination of idealism and pragmatism.
  • Disability Rights Authority (DRA):  The DRA is a very well-conceived concept albeit it needs modifications so as to be in harmony with the contents/views expressed in 1 above. The reason is not far to seek and hence, is not elaborated. After going through the powers, functions and the structure of the proposed DRA with meticulous care, I strongly feel that the proposed DRA must be set up under a separate/exlusive/dedicated statute which may be called “The Disability Rights Authority Act —“. This suggestion is being put forth given the comprehensive nature of DRA’s mandate, its powers and functions, and also its elaborate structure. Please allow me to disabuse the minds of those who feel that the DRA is intended only as a recommendatory bodywith no teeth. My reading of the proposed DRA concept leaves me convinced that it wil have ample powers ample participation of experiential and subject experts, and a number of bodies functioning under its direct supervision, control and guidance.
  • Chief Commissioner and state and district Commissions: Please exercise caution and guard against the interchangeable use of the expressions “Commission” and “Commissioner” in relation to the states and districts. Even the corrected/updated draft in one or two places uses these expressions interchangeably. The proposal for a Chief Commissioner at the national level, and Commission at the state and district levels is innovative, imaginative, and it would be interesting to see how it works.
  • Education: The chapter on education has been very comprehensively drafted and rightly so. While it justly and emphatically provides for inclusive education at all levels, it also mentions/recognizes the so-called special schools. However the mention/recognition of the so-called special schools has happened only in whispers and not with the kind of emphasis it merits. Therefore, there is a definite and distinct need for explicit provision, among other things, for concurrently creating and promoting more disability specific schools and strengthening the existing ones on modern and scientific lines. Such explicit provision is  necessary despite an already incorporated provision in the working draft in respect of providing education in environments that maximize academic and social development.
    Anyways, we already have exclusive schools in relation to some other non-disability areas which is fair enough as long as one gets quality education; and, assuming for a moment, that we don’t have such exclusive schools for others, nothing should stop us from incorporating what is needed. I feel that since persons with disabilities are recognized as a part of human diversity and humanity, there is little justification for encouraging the use of the expression”special schools”. Instead, we should use the expression “disability specific school”.
  • Employment:  I immediately find little scope for commenting on provisions relating to employment as reflected in the working draft. However, I emphatically feel that the justification which merit reservation in promotion for SC and ST communities also applies at least, in equal measure, if not more to persons with disabilities. Hence, it is important to underscore the need for bringing about necessary amendment in the Indian Constitution as was done in the case of SC and ST communities. In some place which I am immediately unable to locate, the working draft while providing for safeguards  states that no person shall be discriminated “merely” on ground of disability implying thereby that disability could be one of the grounds, though not the sole ground of discrimination.  Therefore, Please delete the word “merely” if it still exists in the updated draft. In order to address the concerns of persons who happen to be totally blind, a portion of the reserved quota of jobs should be earmarked for them out of the reserved quota for the blind and the low vision.
  • Accessing justice:  Relevant provisions are very well conceived. Just incorporate a strong provision for fast-tracking of all cases at all levels involving persons with disabilities.
  • Definitions: Just one thought: This is in relation to the generic definition of persons with disabilities which is almost the same as given in Article 1 of the UNCRPD with the lone exception that the expression “long_term” has not been retained. Will this be prejudicial to the interests of the genuinely disabled?

This definition, and also the defition of “reasonable accommodation” and a number of other provisions leave me convinced that the working draft, in a certain sense, is

way more radical/progressive than even the UNCRPD.

My views in respect of the need for having a more progressive and forward looking common law compared to the current PWD Act and also the need for having additional and specific legislations to address highly specific issues of the more marginalized groups within the larger group of persons with disabilities are so well-known that they perhaps do not merit at least immediate reiteration. Common law to addres commonalities, and specific laws, to address specificities depending on need and necessity is my view. I do not favour the idea of clubbing/merging the existing laws into one Act. To my humble way of thinking, it is so utterly wrong to allege, as some seems to have alleged that the new law committee has violated its mandate. In fact, the new law committee was neither mandated to suggest repral of any laws nor to club and merge all disability specific legislations into only one legislation.

Be that as it may, it would also be in the fitness of things to suggest some amendments in the Indian Constitution to strengther the rights regime for persons with disabilities. Suggestions for such amendments must include amending of Articles 15 and 16 so that disability gets included as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. I am aware that suggesting constitutional amendments, strictly speaking, is not within the ambit of the new law committee’s mandate; yet, one perhaps can take this reasonable freedom.

Some more random thoughts: I am not too sure whether insertion of a definition of “barrier” will necessarily work to our advantage. Sometimes, leaving some grey areas is perhaps more advantageous. Some other times, however, it is necessary to define and demystify some expressions. For example, in my view, if any model other than the minimalist model of legal capacity is insisted, then, in my considered view, legal capacity will necessarily have to be defined and demystified.

The working draft is unique in more ways than one. I am particularly impressed by the insertion of principles of implementation and interpretation. The author has made an ingenious attempt to retain the positive jurisprudence which has been built over the years.

To allay the fears expressed by some of our friends, let me state in no uncertain terms that the current workin draft does also adequately address the concerns and aspirations of those persons with disabilities who live in the rural and remote areas. The fact of the matter is that the working draft is so all-encompassingly inclusive.

To be fair to the author of the working draft, we must not fail to appreciate the highly challenging nature and also the enormity and stupendity of the task considering that intricate diversities and diverse intricacies do exist within the larger group of persons with disabilities. It was no mean task; and, yet executed with remarkable sensitivity and alacrity.

I am afraid the Govt. may not accept this kind of a draft in toto; it nevertheless, will continue to have an immensely educative value.

I feel that we need to critique this brilliantly conceived working draft with the objectivity and openness that it merits keeping in mind our  best interests as persons with disabilities, and  putting aside our egos to the extent possible. Such critique should invariably be constructive and in good taste. If some people still choose not to eschew condemnatory language, all I wish to say is this: Just come up with an alternative and matching draft so that one is able to compare and contrast and come to a certain view in respect of the matter.

Well done, amita, well done Nalsar team, well done Sudhaji and the new law committee!

Best regards, 

Prasanna Kumar Pincha



EU development cooperation; does disability count?

Europe has declared 2010 to be the year against poverty and social exclusion. It is a good occasion to look at the European policy towards a group that knows only too well what poverty and social exclusion mean: people in developing countries living with a disability. Does European development aid reach people like Lila Maya in Nepal, who became blind as a baby and was isolated and mistreated until a local NGO helped her set up her business? Or Ricardo in Mozambique, who never went to school because of his paralyzed legs?

A vicious cycle
Poverty, exclusion and disability are interrelated. Poverty causes disability, because it means that people do not have access to health facilities, information and adequate food that could prevent a simple disease to develop into a disability. With proper treatment, Lila Maya might have not become blind. Disability in its turn causes poverty, because practical problems and social stigma exclude people with a disability from education and work to earn their own living. Ricardo makes a little money by repairing the clothes of his neighbours, but what would his life have looked like, if he had had access to school and a wheel chair?  According to the United Nations 650 million people live with a disability and 80% of those live in developing countries[1]. The European Union is a major player in development cooperation; it provides over half of all official development assistance worldwide[2]. An inclusive development policy of the EU can therefore really make a difference for people with a disability.
Beyond good intentions
In 2009 the EU ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is a legally binding convention which stresses the importance of international cooperation and states that countries should ensure that: ‘that international cooperation, including international development programmes, is inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities’[3]. This means that, besides and above the good intentions which the EU expresses by announcing a Year against poverty and social exclusion, it has is a legal obligation to ensure that development cooperation reaches people with a disability. The Convention is an important landmark signalling a change in attitude.  In stead of talking about the handicapped who need to be cared for, people with a disability are now recognized as persons who have the right to participate in all aspects of society. Only countries that have ratified the Convention are bound to it. The EU already took this important step, but a number of European countries such as Norway, the Netherlands, Poland and Italy are still missing on the list.
Towards an inclusive European development policy
Europe has shown its commitment to the rights of the Lila Maya’s and Ricardo’s in the world. But to make sure they can
really benefit from European aid, more steps need to be taken.
  • Ratify: More countries should ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This will show their real commitment and helps to make sure that we will come from good intentions to realization of rights. The EU should urge those member states that have not done so yet, to ratify the Convention as soon as possible. Together, the European countries can encourage other countries to ratify and of course to implement the  Convention.
  • Plan: The start of implementation is developing a good plan. A quick scan of relevant EU policy documents on disability and development does not give much hope. The Commission Work Programme 2010 refers to disability only once, in an annex and not in relation to development. The General development framework, makes no mention of disability at all. The Guidance Note on Disability and Development, published in 2004 by the European Commission[4] provides a number of useful principles, but apparently these are not put into practice. A good sign is that the Directorate General Development is considering to add disability to the list of ‘cross cutting’ issues. Recognizing disability as a cross cutting theme will help to ensure that attention will be paid to disability in all development activities: ‘mainstreaming’ disability. Already, the EU requires applicants of development grants to explain how the grant will benefit people with a disability. Besides mainstreaming disability in development activities, the EU will need to facilitate disability-specific services and support for disabled persons to empower themselves and to get access to mainstream services.
  • Learn: Developing such a plan is not easy. Implementing it will be even more challenging. Mainstreaming disability is a new concept and there are no studies yet that prove which strategies are successful. A lot can be learned from the experiences regarding gender and development. It is also important to do research regarding disability and development. Lessons should be drawn from good and bad experiences, to improve future  policies.
  • Measure. To know if efforts are effectively reaching people with a disability, it is important to collect data before, during and after interventions. How many people with a disability are living in the project area? Which disabilities do they have and how does this affect their ability to benefit from development efforts? Targets will need to be set on how many people with a disability will be reached by a certain effort. In most cases, the required data will be unavailable. People with a disability are not counted and therefore cannot be accounted for. Starting to collect these data will make them visible. This will require ‘disaggregation’ of data: asking projects to report on how many of the people they are people with a disability, just as they are often required to do regarding women and youth.
  • Involve. Last but certainly not least,  people with a disability should be involved in all the above. ‘Nothing about us without us’ is the adagio of the disability movement.

Disability law: Hunger strike called off

After the Centre partially conceded their demands, a group of disabled people on Wednesday called off their hunger strike held to protest against their poor representation on a committee which is drafting a new law to protect their rights.  Javed Abidi, convenor of the Disabled Rights Group, said the strike had been called off after the Centre’s positive response.

A S Narayanan, secretary of the National Association of the Deaf, told The Indian Express through a translator that Gopal Reddy, personal secretary to Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Mukul Wasnik, had confirmed that six more people would be added to the committee, of whom three were disabled. This would bring the total number of disabled people on the committee to six.  Following pressure from various disabled groups, the Social Justice And Empowerment Ministry had formed a committee in April to draft a new legislation, reflecting the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to replace the Disability Act, 1995. The first meeting of the committee will be held on Thursday.

Disability activists are looking for three main changes to the Act.

VINAY SITAPATI
Indian Express

Internship Programme for Law Students

The Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of Law invites applications for its summer internship programme from interested undergraduate and postgraduate law students. The Centre headed by Professor Amita Dhanda is geared to generate legal knowledge on disability issues and to promote a rights based discourse on disability. The Centre is engaged in research-based activities to catalyse State and civil society understanding on disability rights along with documenting current developments in disability law and policy.  The Centre for Disability Studies functions through the following five wings

  • Teaching and Training;
  • Awareness Building and Sensitization;
  • Litigation and Conveyancing;
  • Research and Publication and
  • Documentation.

Currently, the Centre is involved with the following activities –

  1. Preparing the Country Report on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)
  2. Proposing Amendments to the National Trust Act of 1999 in order to bring it in conformity with the UNCRPD
  3. Documenting the lived experience of persons with disabilities placed under legal guardianship
  4. Devising Customized Capacity Building Programs for Non-Governmental Organizations on the UNCRPD to enhance their community based initiatives on disability rights.
  5. Curriculum Development for an Awareness Raising Distance Education Program

The Centre will accept applications for a period of four to six weeks for the months of May, June and July. Applicants must state whether they are applying for a full-time internship based in Hyderabad or a part-time research internship. The part-time research internship will require students to conduct research and gather information about the state of the rights of persons with disabilities based on their location during the internship period for preparation of the Country Report on the UNCRPD. For effectively documenting the rights status of persons with disabilities in every part of the country, students based in the north-eastern states, hilly regions and rural areas are encouraged to apply. The centre is also keen to engage students with disabilities in various activities of the Centre. Internship applicants should submit an updated resume together with a one page personal statement, on interest in human rights generally and disability law and rights more particularly. The application must highlight the specific areas of interest of the applicant so as to facilitate the placement with a particular wing/current task of the Centre. Applications will be considered on a rolling basis.

Applications, nominations and enquiries should be addressed to the Head of the Centre for Disability Studies at internships.cds@gmail.com

Manmohan promises disabled-friendly laws

FIGHTING FOR THEIR RIGHTS: Physically challenged persons, under the banner of the National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled and led by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat, march on Parliament Street in New Delhi on Tuesday to press their demands. Photo: V. Sudhersan

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday said the government was in favour of amending the laws, if need be, to make them more disabled-friendly. He gave this assurance to a delegation of the differently-abled persons who met him in Parliament. The delegation was led by CPI (M) MP Brinda Karat.  “The Prime Minister was extremely sympathetic towards the demands of the disabled persons and said their demands were genuine,” Ms. Karat said. Dr. Singh assured the delegation of changing the laws to make them disabled-friendly, if necessary. The Prime Minister interacted with the members of the delegations and enquired about their problems. Talking to The Hindu, Ms. Karat said this was the first time that a delegation of differently-abled persons had visited Parliament House. “It was pointed out to the Parliament staff that there was only one gate (Gate no 9) in Parliament House for the physically disabled people and this was far away from the main entrance,” Ms. Karat said. The delegation also met the Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Mukul Wasnik who told them that the government was finalising a new law for the disabled that would replace the existing law.

Earlier, a large number of people with different forms of disabilities marched to Parliament House to demand a better deal. Marching under the banner, ‘National Platform for the Rights of Disabled Persons,’ the people highlighted the plight of the economically and socially disadvantaged among the disabled, the poor, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. “The basic issue is that of the approach of the government and we must request you to consider our demands not as an act of charity but as fulfilment of entitlements and rights as equal citizens of India. India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the persons with Disabilities which enjoins the government to ensure minimum rights and livelihood to disabled citizens,” the marchers said in a memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister. The demands include a comprehensive social security system for all persons with disabilities and their families including the Antyodaya cards, free health care for disabled persons, amendments to the Right to Education Act to make provision for disabled teachers and professional and identification of jobs for the disabled immediately with annual special recruitment drives each year.

Besides setting up a separate Ministry for disability affairs, the memorandum also sought issuance of a universally valid identity card and replacing the current Persons with Disabilities Act (1995) in consonance with the provisions of the U.N. Convention and harmonising other laws, the disabled persons also wanted proper enumeration of the persons with disabilities. The organisations that participated in the march included the Paschimbanga Rajya Pratibandhi Samaiilani, the Differently Abled Persons Welfare Federation of Thiruvananthapuram, the Karnataka Rajya Angavikalara Mattu Palakara Okkota, the Jharkhand Vikalanga Morcha, the Tamil Nadu Association for the Rights of all types of Disabled and Caregivers and the Vibhinna Prathiba Vanthula Jakkula Vedika of Andhra Pradesh.

The Hindu

EU Accession to the UN Convention: A great advanced stopped in its tracks

EDF participates in the public hearing organised in Brussels by the European Parliament on 22 February to discuss the EU accession to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. European Voice publishes today an article signed by EDF President Yannis Vardakastanis and Chairperson of the European Parliament Subcommittee on Human Rights Heidi Hautala to expressing a concern that millions of Europeans may have to wait years before they benefit from the EU’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of persons with disabilities. In November, for the first time in its history, the EU as a body gave a formal accord to accession to an international human-rights treaty – a convention that affects around 65 million people in Europe and 650 million worldwide. So the signature that the EU attached to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was both historic and of huge practical importance.

Indeed, for the disability community in Europe, its significance is hard to overestimate: never before has the EU made such a public, long-term commitment to issues such as equality and non-discrimination of disabled people in all areas of life, recognised their right to live independently in the community and accepted an obligation to take disability into account in all international co-operation work. But whether this commitment has a real impact depends on the EU’s member states. The Council of the European Union adopted the decision to ratify the Convention on 26 November but the Convention – already in force in almost eighty states worldwide – will become binding on the EU only when the ratification instrument is formally deposited with the United Nations. The Council says it can deposit it only when each member state has ratified the treaty. This is a political decision, rather than a legal requirement: the European Community has previously ratified international agreements without waiting for all of its member states to do so.

It is a decision that is proving far-reaching. Of the 79 countries that have ratified the Convention to date, only 13 are EU states (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK). The talk among officials is that it could take years for the other 15 to put their stamp on the treaty. This effectively means that disabled people in the 13 member states that have already completed ratification can enjoy only some of the rights granted them under the Convention: a disabled Italian woman can complain about violation of her rights if the law or policy in question is based on national law (which must be in accordance with the Convention), but not if it is based on EU law (which does not yet have to respect it). This leaves disabled people across the EU without the full benefits of the Convention. To date, persons with disabilities have systematically faced barriers, exclusion and discrimination in their daily lives. With the Convention in force, EU member states would be obliged to remove barriers, to stamp out discrimination and to adopt inclusive policies in areas such as transport, cohesion funds and the free movement of goods, persons and services, to name just a few. States Parties, including the EU, would be obliged to actively involve organisations representing disabled people in the development and implementation of legislation and policies, and the EU would submit regular progress reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

As these examples suggest, the Convention marks a radical change in thinking about disabilities. In the 2000s, there was a realisation – within the EU, and around the world –that the only sustainable approach to disability was one based on human rights. The old approach – to rely on charity – had limited disabled people’s access to ordinary life and  limited perceptions of them. The political reluctance to proceed with the EU ratification without waiting for the remaining 14 member states – to be done with national ratifications – keeps persons with disabilities in their old position, as recipients of charity. It places traditional champions of human rights – EU states – behind many other states. It leaves 65 million Europeans without the respect, defence and promotion of their rights that the EU has a whole says they are entitled to. And, it makes the millions of disabled Europeans who already know about the Convention doubtful about their government’s  good will and commitment to them.

Check  program of the public hearing organised by the European Parliament 22 February

Proposed amendments to Disability Act upsets NGOs

Bangalore, Jan 5, DH News Service:
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
NGOs and activists have expressed their disappointment over the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s announcement that it would introduce amendments to the Persons With Disability Act in the forthcoming budget session.

While the government is preparing to put forth 101 amendments, advocate Kanchan Pamnani, who has been working closely with the Disability Rights Group that demands the total replacement of the Act, has said that the current law requires not less than 300 amendments.

“The minister has gone back on his promise to replace the law, which he had made to the members of the group some months ago,” Kanchan, said Mumbai-based solicitor.

Many allege that the Act passed by the Indian Parliament in 1995 does not align with the United Nations Convention for Rights of Persons With Disability (UNCRPD) that calls for a rights-based approach.

“Having signed and ratified the Convention, India has an obligation to orient its laws towards it,” Kanchan said.

Public domain
C Mahesh, Advocacy Coordinator for Bangalore-based CBR Forum said that the amended law should be placed in the public domain before being tabled in the Parliament.

“The amendment must be placed before the public domain and debates need to be held before making any decision.

Apart from the 100 odd articles that have been proposed to be amended there are nearly 18 articles that have been left out,” he said.

Victor John Cordeiro, Manager Advocacy and Campaign, Leonard Cheshire Disability, South-Asia Region office said that the proposed draft amendment is not in line with the UN Convention. “There are many loopholes in the proposed amendment and many articles are excluded. A new legislation must be passed instead of amending the existing law,” he said.

Earlier, Javed Abidi, Convenor of Disability Rights Group and Chairman of National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled Persons (NCPEDP) had asked the government to replace the Act with a new legislation  which his movement calls “The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Respect for Dignity, Effective Participation and Inclusive Opportunities) Act.”

After meeting with MSJE Minister Mukul Wasnik, Abidi had said he has shared the concerns of the activists.

Flaws in amendments

“It was then that we brought to his attention the flaws, substantial ones, that still existed in the so called  ‘Amendments’ document being floated around by the Ministry,” said Abidi.

“We then proposed that what India needs now, rather what the 70 million disabled people of India need now is a brand new, modern, forward looking, 21st century law. We even proposed a name. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Respect for Dignity, Effective Participation and Inclusive Opportunities) Act,.”

However, the minister participating in the Louis Braille day celebrations on Monday has said that the government would introduce the amendments in what appears to be a u-turn on his earlier attempts to hold consultations and act according to the community’s wishes.

“This is just a lollypop he is offering to the community. The government doesn’t appear serious on offering the community what it needs,” Kanchan said.

Deccan Herald

Stall the Right to Education Bill which excludes the education of all children with disability

A recent press release issued by Mithu Alur stated that ‘The Right to Education Bill’ that is to be tabled in the Lok Sabha today July 30, does not include education of all children with disability! “100 million people in the poorest areas of our country will be affected by this short sighted omission” says Mithu Alur, who has been fighting for the educational rights of children with disabilities, for over three decades.

Definitions of any target group that has suffered years of marginalization and neglect requires a positive discriminatory statement/clause she has said, which clearly identifies the group being marginalized, in this case children with disability. This point has been repeatedly told to the government and the authorities concerned. The Legislation of the country or the law of the land states it as well, so do all the Government’s flagship programmes such as the ICDS and SSA who speak of zero rejection The exclusion is a violation of the PWD ACT 1996 also a violation of what has been tabled in Parliament before.

The Bill has a gap which needs to be addressed. To prevent exclusion from programmes and budgets it is crucial to insert a phrase in Chapter 1 Clause 2(d ) where other disadvantaged groups have been clearly defined, to make an inclusive statement that children with disability are also included. The insertion of positive discriminatory phrase stating, “including children with disability” will ensure cross referencing cutting across all sectors

During the recent Lok Sabha elections, four major political parties had included disability issues in their political manifestos. Despite all efforts, one of the first Bills being tabled by the Lok Saba has excluded children with Disabilities! This can be corrected if the phrase children with disabilities is included in the Bill –Chapter 1 Clause 2(d).

“India can never achieve ‘Education for All’ unless ‘all’ includes children with disability as well” Mithu Alur

“The ultimate resort will be the judiciary of the country.  It should not be necessary for the ordinary citizen to have to access the courts, but when all fails and there is no option there has to be an ultimate remedy.  It is heartening to read the following quote:

When a citizen fails to get redress from other branches of the state, the courts do sometime need to step in because if the courts also ‘shut their doors to the citizens….(that) would be bad for the preservation of the rule of law’  Chief Justice A.S. Anand, Supreme Court, Times of India, August 27,1997 ‘…the courts must not shy away from discharging their constitutional obligations to protect and enforce human rights’, while acting within the bound of law they must rise to the occasion as guardians of the constitution, criticism of judicial activism no withstanding’.


Press Release by Dr. Mithu Alur, Chairperson ADAPT

Ratify the UN Disability Treat

Michael Ashley Stein and Janet E. Lord | July 9, 2009
Editor: John Feffer

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD, or the Convention) is the first human rights treaty of the 21st century. The CRPD is also the first legally binding international instrument with the power specifically to protect the rights of the world’s largest minority, some 650 million persons with disabilities.
Adopted in December 2006, along with an optional protocol providing for communications and inquiry procedures, the Convention is currently in operation. Some 139 states have signed and 58 states have ratified the Convention, but not the United States. Nor did the United States actively participate in or otherwise facilitate the CRPD’s negotiations and drafting, despite a wealth of technical expertise garnered from years of experience with the seminal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  The Obama administration can use the opportunity of signing and submitting to the Senate for ratification the Convention as a means of reaffirming the commitment of the United States rejoining the global community generally, and to continuing American leadership in the area of disability law and policy. Hence, action on the CRPD would signal support for the human rights efforts that we already fund and facilitate beyond our borders.  Finally, the CRPD represents a break from the well-worn and misconceived Cold-War era split between economic, social, and cultural rights on the one hand, and civil and political rights on the other. In expressing the connections between different human rights, in part through the expression of the U.S. disability rights concept of reasonable accommodation, the Convention offers a new way to conceptualize the whole field of human rights.

A Critical Convention

The CRPD relates to contemporary UN human rights conventions in two significant and substantive ways. The Convention holistically combines civil and political rights with economic, social, and cultural rights, demonstrating the Vienna Declaration’s notion that human rights are truly “indivisible, interrelated and interconnected.” Additionally, the CRPD emulates the Convention on the Rights of the Child by comprehensively cataloging human rights obligations for a targeted population, in this instance, persons with disabilities.  In terms of substance, the aims of the CRPD are consistent with that of U.S. disability law. Indeed, the core principles articulated in the CRPD are firmly embedded in American disability law — respect for human dignity, nondiscrimination, and reasonable accommodation, autonomy, and participation. Indeed, it’s the first human rights treaty to provide explicit expression of reasonable accommodation as a core component of non-discrimination. The concept of reasonable accommodation under the CPPD requires that necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments be made where needed in order to facilitate the enjoyment of human rights by persons with disabilities, whether in employment, education, access to justice, health care, or other contexts. Where gaps arise between the two sets of legal mandates, they do so because U.S. domestic civil rights laws and international human rights laws operate from distinct, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, perspectives. Thus, U.S. law is either consistent with the mandates of the Convention or capable of reaching those levels through more rigorous implementation and/or additional actions by Congress.

To provide one example, an obvious gap in coverage between the U.S. federal disability scheme and the CRPD involves job training and rehabilitation. Title I of the ADA, which governs employment, contains strong antidiscrimination prohibitions, and was intended as the most expedient method of bringing about social and economic equality for people with disabilities. However, additional policy measures supporting that aspiration have been gradual or nonexistent. It took nearly a decade after the ADA’s passage to raise the level of income that disabled persons could earn while still maintaining health care coverage, and the United States has yet to pass a national vocational training program for people with disabilities. Consequently, while the ADA forbids employment discrimination, the means by which disabled Americans can obtain and keep gainful employment have not been provided. Yet there is no reason to believe that a combination of aggressive implementation of existing law, as well as additional steps by Congress, could not approximate the CRPD’s more comprehensive scheme.

U.S. Resistance

In December 2001, the UN General Assembly authorized an ad-hoc committee to consider a specialized disability human rights treaty. During the first two ad-hoc sessions, held in July 2002 and June 2003 respectively, representatives debated the necessity and of drafting a treaty targeted at protecting the human rights of persons with disabilities. The U.S. position during those sessions was that disability was a matter of domestic, rather than international, concern. Moreover, that in light of the ADA being considered the leading statute in this field, the United States would neither sign nor ratify an international agreement relating to disability rights.   To bolster that position, the Bush administration sent a skeletal delegation to initial negotiating sessions and didn’t permit members in attendance to intervene (proffer official emendations). During the final sessions of the negotiation, the Bush administration replaced one of its most seasoned human rights treaty negotiators from the Department of State with a junior-level official, possessing neither substantive disability law expertise nor human rights treaty experience, to lead the U.S. delegation. This occurred at a time when key provisions were being finalized, including the issues of particular interest to American foreign policy (e.g., rights to sexual and reproductive health, international monitoring).  The Bush administration’s absence was glaring in view of the extensive experience of the United States in the disability rights field. These path-breaking laws — the Architectural Barriers Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Education for all Handicapped Children Act — set international standards. The Bush administration’s aversion to cooperation was also particularly striking because of the references in the CRPD to American disability law (notably, the concept of reasonable accommodation) and its inherent values (such as its emphasis on independence and autonomy).

The Bricker Legacy

The Bush administration chose not to complete the legacy of President George H.W. Bush, who ushered in the ADA, and indeed arrogantly stated at the outset of the CRPD negotiations that this was a law not for us, but for the foreign “others.” While the previous administration had a particularly hostile attitude toward human rights treaties, cultural resistance to human rights treaties, and indeed international law in general, extends back in time to the 1950s.  Although the United States started out in a position of international leadership in the early international human rights movement, which included the participation of Eleanor Roosevelt and other Americans, former Senator John W. Bricker (R-OH) brought an abrupt end to this pioneering role in the early 1950s. Bricker proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would have made all treaties non-self-executing, meaning among other things that individuals would be unable to invoke treaty provisions in U.S. courts absent implementing legislation. Instrumentally, Bricker’s amendment would have made it extremely difficult for the U.S. to join human rights treaties, thus helping to preserve racist state legislation.  While President Dwight D. Eisenhower was successful in defeating the Bricker amendment, success came at a cost. In order to defeat the amendment, the administration promised not to accede to any international human rights treaties. Bricker’s legacy lives on in some measure, owing to an enduring resistance to U.S. participation in human rights treaties. There remains a real disconnect between some of the human rights strengthening activities we pursue abroad in USAID, State Department-funded development assistance activities, and what we are doing back home.

A Return to the Global Community

Regrettably, the United States has the poorest record of ratification of human rights treaties among all industrialized nations, having ratified only 3 of 26 international human rights treaties. The CRPD offers our nation an opportunity to join the global community as part of a historic Convention, and to signal acceptance of the Vienna Declaration’s principles that human rights are holistic in nature. As well, the CRPD is a vehicle to reevaluate domestic laws and policies in a manner that would respond to current shortcomings and thereby maintain America’s precedence in the disability field. On December 11, 2007, then-candidate Barack Obama called for the United States to “lead the world in empowering people with disabilities to take full advantage of their talents and become independent, integrated members of society.” He further called for a reclamation of America’s global leadership by becoming a signatory to — and having the Senate ratify — the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As president, Obama continues to underscore his support for disability rights (notwithstanding his blunder on late-night television, in which he likened his bowling skills to the Special Olympics and for which he quickly issued an apology). The State Department is spearheading the preparatory work on behalf of the administration for signature and submission of the CRPD to the Senate for ratification. Unlike other potential human rights treaty ratifications that might garner Senate consideration — for instance, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women — disability law is an area in which the United States claims a precedence that it can and must prove.

Michael Ashley Stein is a professor at William & Mary School of Law, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, and the executive director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability. Janet E. Lord, is a partner with BlueLaw International, LLP, a research associate at the Harvard Law School Project on Disability, and an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland School of Law. They are both contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus.
Michael Ashley Stein and Janet E. Lord | July 9, 2009

Editor: John Feffer