Killing of Unborn Children with Downs – Genocide

It is the opinion of this Society that the government is guilty of genocide, a crime against humanity which is a violation of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. New Zealand is a signatory to the Convention that was passed by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

Relevant section of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Our complaint is that in February 2010 the government of New Zealand instituted the “Antenatal Screening for Down Syndrome and other conditions – Quality Improvements” programme. This programme was introduced by the Ministry of Health following advice from the Ministry’s National Screening Unit [NSU] without public consultation. Cabinet papers obtained under the Official Information Act state that the outcomes of the programme will be a reduction in the number of births of people with Down syndrome, with around 90% of unborn children diagnosed with the condition being aborted.  The programme is funded by the state and targets all pregnant women in New Zealand in their first trimester on the basis of providing information to women to make decisions about their pregnancies, including abortion.  People with disabilities are the only group of people in New Zealand targeted for selective abortion. Down syndrome, and other conditions that are targeted, are genetic conditions that have no cure. The basis of first trimester screening is to enable woman to have an abortion within the 20 week timeframe if an abnormality is detected. Other reasons for prenatal diagnosis, such as parent education, hospital selection and delivery management, do not require testing during the first trimester and can be safely left until the later stages of pregnancy.  The preventing of birth of a group of people falls within the definition of genocide under international law.

This Programme was introduced by the Ministry of Health following advice from the Ministry’s National Screening Unit [NSU]. Documentation obtained under the Official Information Act from the Ministry of Health included the document Summary of Key Informant Interviews Antenatal Down Syndrome Screening Final Report which states that, “The programme will be cost beneficial for the population and the health system. The scan highlighted literature that supported the premise that the economic costs of screening outweigh the high costs associated with the long term care needs of an individual with Down syndrome.”

This is eugenics which proclaims that only the perfect have a right to be born. The screening programme is a search and destroy mission and is a further major step on the slippery slope. The government seeks to conceal the true purpose of the programme by calling it a “quality improvement” rather than national screening programme. The government states that it is providing a service to families by giving them a choice whether to terminate the life of the child with Down syndrome or to allow the child to be born. We should be aware that this is part of a strategy of social conditioning. Right to Life contends that the government has decided that children with Down syndrome are not valued or wanted in our community. Its intention then is to encourage families to abort children with Down syndrome. The insidious option to terminate the life of the child will ultimately become a duty to kill the child before birth. With the acceptance of eugenics ultimately it may be expected that with the rationing of diminishing health resources the health care for the disabled will be restricted.

It is the opinion of this Society that the screening programme is in violation of Article II [d] of the Convention, Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. People with Down syndrome fall within the definition of “disabled persons” and are recognized under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons as a group which forms part of a nation. Under that Declaration disabled persons “have the same civil and political rights as other human beings” and must be protected, against all exploitation, all regulations and all treatment of a discriminatory, abusive or degrading nature.” These rights are further reinforced under Article 10 of the Convention on the Rights of Disabled, which states “State Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.”

We request that the government cease this screening programme. In the event that the screening programme is not terminated Right to Life New Zealand will lay a formal complaint with the United Nations [The Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide] against the government of New Zealand for genocide by imposing measures to prevent births of children with Down syndrome. The World Health Organisation [WHO], states that the classification for Down syndrome is a “mild to moderate disability.” Most children with Down syndrome participate in public and private educational programs. Educators and researchers are still discovering the full educational potential of people with Down syndrome. Today people with Down syndrome live at home with their families and are active participants in the educational, social and recreational activities of their community. People with Down syndrome are valued members of their families and their communities, contributing to society in a variety of ways. Women who have an unborn child diagnosed with Down syndrome or any other disability need and deserve the support and compassion of the community to accept their child as a valued and loved member of the family and community.

The government should promote a culture of life by ensuring that families who have unborn children with Down syndrome receive compassion and are given all the encouragement and support needed to bring their child to birth. After the birth of their child they should be provided with the services necessary to assist them in providing for the special needs of their child.

Scoop Politics Independent News

From DNIS: “The reason we want a new law…”

Disabled rights activists from across the country were in New Delhi for the National Consultation on ‘The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Respect for Dignity, Effective Participation and Inclusive Opportunities) Act, 2010’, organised by N.C.P.E.D.P. The demand for a new law was unanimous.Dorodi Sharma of D.N.I.S. caught up with a few of them with the poser, “The reason I want a new law…” From vehement demands for a rights based Act to strong voices for accountability, the views were mixed but not different.

Shampa Sengupta, Sruti Disability Rights Centre, Kolkata: “The reason I want a new law is because amendments to the old will not be able to cater to the ‘diverse’ needs of persons with ‘ALL’ kinds of disabilities.”

Sameera Shamim, Talking About Reproductive and Sexual Health Issues (T.A.R.S.H.I.), New Delhi: “The present law has many loopholes and does not look into the day to day lives and problems of people with disabilities. The definition of disability is very narrow, as is the understanding of other issues vis-a-vis disability. As someone who believes completely in affirmative rights towards sexual and reproductive health of all people, the present law completely neglects this area. Also post U.N.C.R.P.D., the existing law can be thrown away.”

C. Mahesh, Community Based Rehabilitation (C.B.R.) Forum, Bengaluru: “India needs to have a new and comprehensive Act that clearly defines all the rights in the context of people with disabilities. The current law is inadequate on how inclusion, participation, and exercising legal capacity by persons with disabilities in the areas of living in the community, accessing services, education and employment can be made possible. There is also no accountability and enforcement mechanism in the old Act.”

Amitabh Mehrotra, S.P.A.R.C. India, Lucknow: “We need a new law in line with U.N.C.R.P.D. that will look into the ground realities of our vast country. The concerns of the unheard voices need to be addressed immediately. Justice needs to be done to people who are intentionally or unintentionally segregated from the mainstream.”

Arun Rao, The Deafway, New Delhi: “The new law with U.N.C.R.P.D. as a base document would put deaf issues and concerns in a position where positive progress is possible. There will be a lot to consider naturally but the retrogressive thinking in the Disability Act of 1995 will be negated. This will open up fresh approaches to the future. On another track, the old Act has made us insecure, there is also a tendency to be very narrow minded and grabby about things. I guess any oppressed community is reactive and defensive without consciously wanting to appear so. As the broad scope of the new Act sinks in, people will put down their individual agendas and apprehensions and truly embrace inclusion in the spirit in which it deserves to be talked about and engaged.”

M. Srinivasulu, Network of People with Disabilities Organisation, Hyderabad: “The present situation demands that any disability legislation needs to be on the basis of U.N.C.R.P.D. To achieve this, the old Act has to be repealed. As a grassroot activist, my opinion is that if justice is to be done to all sections of the disabled population, we need a new law and not amendments.”

Suhas Karnik, National Association for the Blind (N.A.B.), Mumbai: “It is almost 14 years since we got the old Act. Amendments were due for a long time. But with India ratifying U.N.C.R.P.D., we have a different frame of reference now and mere amendments would not work. Although the Government has started the process of amendments, the concerns of the disability sector have not been taken into consideration. The most glaring drawback of the amendments is that it does not take into account 18 Articles of U.N.C.R.P.D. There is no mention of legal capacity, accountability and punitive measures. Having more than 100 amendments makes no sense. It is time to go for a new law which is in consonance with the U.N. Convention.”

Gautam Chaudhary, Sanchar, Kolkata: “There has been a major paradigm shift towards rights based approach since 1995. U.N.C.R.P.D., which has been ratified by India, gives us an appropriate frame work from the rights perspective to the issue of disability. When the whole framework of reference has undergone a vast change, it is rather futile to try to amend the old Act. Many of the significant chapters are not taken into consideration in the present process of amendments. One simply cannot include all the aspects of U.N.C.R.P.D. in the present law in its present format and if one is talking of changing the format, one is obviously talking of a new law. I strongly feel that we have no other alternative but to have a new law.”

Rajiv Rajan, Vidyasagar, Chennai: “The old law was enacted when the sector was still following the welfare model of disability. Now we should go for a rights based law that will reflect the letter and spirit of U.N.C.R.P.D. However much we try to incorporate the provisions of the U.N.C.R.P.D. into the old law, it will just be patchwork.”

Kanchan Pamnani, a visually impaired Advocate from Mumbai summed up the general feeling about the Disability Act of 1995: “I am fed up of the charity mindset that the old law projects. I think we all are.”

Studying to tell the tale

There has been a lot of controversy over whether the Right to Education Act covers disabled children, and whether disabled children should have access to the same schools as all others. Here is my own experience. I am forty three. I have cerebral palsy which has affected my speech and mobility. I use a wheelchair to move around and a voice synthesiser which is a small version of what Professor Stephen Hawkings uses. I also have two masters degrees from the UK. Yes, I am educated despite the fact that I am moderately severe! My life has been a mixture of both East and West. I have a bachelor’s degree from St Xavier’s College in Mumbai, a diploma in desk top publishing from Oxford Brookes University, two masters one from the London University, and one from the London Metropolitan University. Today, I hold a corporate job in a popular bookstore. Due to technological advances my disabilities do not come in the way of my performance, as I coordinate events through emails and sms’s.

I am glad I was educated!

Soon after my birth, my parents noticed that I was not keeping up to the milestones like a normal child. They went searching for a diagnosis for me. Every doctor they met confirmed that I would be a ‘vegetable’. The doctors told them: ‘just feed her and clothe her as nothing can be done with her.’ My parents refused to give up hope and refused to just dump me. They went in search for a diagnosis for me in England. Indeed they were right. I was assessed with high intelligence! I was put into a special school where I flourished. At that time inclusive education had not happened as it has now, when it is a mandate with Acts of Parliament and budgetary allocations supporting it. I was able to read by the age of one and a half years!  Six years later my parents returned to India, they found no school for children like me. It was a culture shock to confront the oppression around me. When I used to step out, people would either stare at me or make remarks openly in front of me. They would offer unsolicited advice: ‘have you tried homeopathy or why don’t take her to a fakir or a guru, she will be cured. Why don’t you put a collar around her neck? It must be her last life. She doesn’t need to go to school keep her at home’

These kind of comments came from everyone, including the educated rich. I was even discriminated against at children’s birthday parties and social events. I was once stopped from entering a swimming pool because disabled people were considered infectious! Parents with disabled children were frowned upon. I am ashamed to say some of the top families of the country were ashamed to bring out their disabled children into their own drawing rooms in fear of the kind of behaviour that would be meted out. They say ignorance is bliss, but in this case ignorance was harmful and oppressive. The negative attitudes of people would make me cry and my mother would comfort me, but needed comforting herself. I was miserable. Socially, I felt rejected and isolated. On top of this, I had no school to go to.  It was then that my mother, who was influenced by the British model of educating disabled children, opened India’s first special school. The first Spastics Society model was started in 1972 in Colaba, Mumbai. Subsequently, other schools began in Calcutta, Delhi, Madras and Bangalore. My whole family came out in support of children like me.

For me life has not exactly had a silver lining. Looking back at the age of 43, I ask myself — was a special school enough? I was in segregated education till I was 17. Seventeen years of being shut away from my brothers and sisters, from my companions, due to my disability. The system disables one further. Special schools imprison disabled people. Segregation dehumanises.  Fortunately my education was a mixture of segregated special schooling and inclusive higher education. The masters degree changed my adult life. It taught me how to think. It taught me to articulate my inner traumas that come from living in a world full of non-disabled people. It gave me the freedom of speech and the freedom of my age. For the first time in my life it has made me believe in myself and what I stand for.

The most important input that empowered me was education. What would I have done without education! The sad fact however is that for every disabled person who has the privilege of a special school, there are hundreds of disabled children who are shut out of any school at all. Today, I am proud that the government has mandated all schools to be inclusive.  With the Right to Education Act including ‘all children with disabilities, I feel proud that the children of tomorrow will have an opportunity as a right to be able to study with their brothers and sisters in regular schools, and hopefully doctors will not call disabled people ‘vegetables’, and schools will not shut their doors to them, and the community will not shun them.

The writer is a disability activist and senior events manager, Oxford Bookstore (Mumbai)

Indian Express

In today’s pages: Schools, Honduras and ‘judicial eugenics’

The Times endorses an unusual idea being considered today by the L.A. Unified School Board: allowing assorted groups inside and outside the district to operate 50 newly built schools over the next four years. Yes, there are pitfalls to this idea, but it’s still the most intriguing experiment to reinvent local education to come along in years. The ongoing crisis in Honduras, meanwhile, is starting to look like it won’t be resolved without some “superpower pressure” from the United States, The Times opines. It’s time to impose sanctions on those behind the coup that ousted the country’s rightful president, Manuel Zelaya, and take other actions aimed at restoring democracy. “Failure to return to constitutional order would send a signal to the rest of Latin America that once again political problems can be solved with an old-style coup.”  And we celebrate the nomination of Regina Benjamin as surgeon general. This “angel-like” figure, known for her work bringing clinics to rural areas, rebuilding health centers devastated by Hurricane Katrina and leading medical associations, “has the potential to be one of the strongest voices in public health in decades.”

On the Op-Ed page, columnist Jonah Goldberg raises an eyebrow over a recent comment in the New York Times from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  ’Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided,’ Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, ‘there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.’  Goldberg lists other prominent abortion backers, including former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who appeared to think that abortion was necessary to cull undesirable elements — like the poor and minorities — from the population. He’d like to see more questioning of such attitudes in the media.

Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project says the Obama administration is breaking its promise to bring transparency to government surveillance programs. The administration is reportedly proceeding with a Bush-era plan to use the National Security Agency to screen government computer traffic on private-sector networks, a program known as Einstein 3 that has no intrinsic security value — but will allow spooks to read e-mail communication between the government and private citizens.  And Deborah Doctor of Disability Rights California challenges Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to document all the fraud he claims to have identified in the state’s In-Home Supportive Services program, a quarter of whose funds he says are wasted. The governor not only hasn’t proven the accuracy of that figure, he has proposed fixes that could well cost more than they would save.

Los Angeles Times