Convention of Rights 38: Postscript, advocacy

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD) was signed and ratified by Uganda in 2008. It is important for ensuring human rights are observed. It is time the people of Uganda held their political representatives responsible for their obligations to this important international agreement (see Uganda: Why We Need to Hold Our Leaders Accountable).

Persons with disabilities (PWDs) suffer human rights abuse despite the existence of a legal and political framework of support. The 2016 National Union of Disabled People Uganda (NUDIPU) report UN challenges Uganda government on disability rights details the comments of Dr Uchenma Emelonye, a Country Representative of the United Nations office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Uganda. The report says:

The UN is concerned that although Uganda has very sound legal frameworks, their implementation remains a huge challenge. This is however not peculiar to Uganda, but nearly all African countries experience the same scenario.

“There are still challenges in the enjoyment of rights of PWDs in Uganda. The laws exist but implementation is still challenging,” Dr Emelonye said, adding that majority of PWDs in Uganda continue to suffer discrimination, exclusion, sexual violence against women and children, and experience serious challenges while accessing justice.

That most African countries don't honour their obligations is no defense. Uganda has some of the most progressive disability rights legislation in Africa and should continue leading the way. 

Why are disability rights important? Everyone is entitled to their human rights. Disability rights are human rights. The workbook Human Rights: Yes! describes human rights as:

Universal: Human rights apply to every person in the world, regardless of their race, colour, sex, ethnic or social origin, religion, language, nationality, age, sexual orientation, disability, or other status. They apply equally and without discrimination to each and every person. The only requirement for having human rights is to be human.

Inherent: Human rights are a natural part of who you are. The text of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) begins: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

Inalienable: Human rights automatically belong to each human being. They do not need to be given to persons by their government or any other authority, nor can they be taken away. Nobody can tell you that you do not have these rights. Even if your rights are violated or you are prevented from claiming your human rights, you are still entitled to these rights.

These concepts are the foundation of the CRPD which serves to underline the human rights of PWDs. The rights in the CRPD are indivisible - all the rights must be taken together; interdependent - they can only be realized if they are all realized; and interrelated - they all effect each other. The workbook Human Rights: Yes! continues:

In simple terms, human rights all work together and we need them all. For example, a person’s ability to exercise the right to vote can be affected by the rights to education, freedom of opinion and information, or even an adequate standard of living. A government cannot pick and choose which rights it will uphold for the persons who live in that country. Each right is necessary and affects the others.

The message of the CRPD is clear, everyone is entitled to their human rights. Everyone can demand their human rights be protected, fulfilled and respected. 

When you advocate for human rights and use the human rights framework to support your work no one can say you are asking for special treatment or something you don't deserve. Everyone has a role to play to ensure the CRPD is implemented fully. The workbook Human Rights: Yes! continues:

The existence of human rights law does not make human rights a reality in people’s lives. Positive attitudes and good intentions are not enough either. Without individual efforts, a firm social and cultural commitment reinforced by group action, and strong implementation and enforcement by governments, human rights cannot be guaranteed.

Giving Voice to the Voiceless: Persons with Disabilities Advocacy in Africa.
IRI (International Republican Institute) has worked to advance the participation of persons with disabilities in Uganda for many years, initially focusing on supporting Ugandan civil society organizations to advocate for the implementation of the Persons with Disabilities Act of 2006. This advocacy in regions such as Iganga, Gulu, Masindi and Luwero, resulted in the construction of ramps to government buildings and schools, the provision of specialized health services at local hospitals, and increases in local budget allocations for services for disabled persons.

There is a great deal of work to be done and a need for advocacy. The report UN challenges Uganda government on disability rights concludes:

The CRPD committee therefore, recommends that Ugandan government reviews of the laws related to disability, establishes mechanisms of consulting PWDs and their organisations on budget allocations, incorporates the concept of reasonable accommodation in the legal systems, establishes measures to tackle discrimination against women with disabilities, increases awareness on the rights and dignity of PWDs, and raises awareness among members of parliament, executive and judiciary with the regard to the Convention on the rights of PWDs and ensure their support in implementation of the concluding observations in consultation with organisations of PWDs. 

(Note: These concluding observations can be found in the 2016 report the Committee on the Rights of PWDs: Concluding observations on the initial report of Uganda).

The CRPD provides a map for the future, a future where everyone is freely granted their rights. Human rights should not have to be requested, they are everyone's right. Under the terms of the CRPD the Ugandan government is accountable for implementing the rights in the Convention. It is time for the rights of PWDs to be acknowledged.

Convention of Rights 37: Postscript, human diversity and disability

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD) has many important principles, the idea that disability is part of human diversity is of fundamental importance. Everyone should be aware of its importance to ensure every citizen gets their human rights.

That disability is fundamentally an aspect of human diversity is stated clearly in Article 3, d, in the General Principles of the CRPD. The principle is worded like this:

Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity.

In the social model of disability awareness of the barriers persons with disabilities (PWDs) face leads to a focus on the way society causes disability, the individual is lost. However with broad awareness of the barriers PWDs face in society it becomes easier to identify the human rights problems that need to be corrected. Addressing these problems the rights model of disability returns the focus to the human rights of PWDs.

That disability is a part of human diversity needs to be embraced. The workbook Human Rights: Yes! puts it like this:  

Disability as a natural part of human diversity: Everyone is different, whether that difference relates to colour, gender, ethnicity, size, shape, or other characteristics. A disability is no different. It may limit a person’s mobility or their ability to hear, see, taste, or smell. A psychosocial disability or intellectual disability may affect the way persons think, feel, or process information. Regardless of its characteristics, disability neither subtracts from nor adds to a person’s humanity, value, or rights. It is simply a feature of a person.

This principle is of importance to PWDs because when it is grasped the case for human rights is made clearly. The 2005 paper Disability as Diversity: A Difference with a Difference states the case clearly:

Disability is an inescapable element of human experience. Although it is rarely acknowledged as such, it is also a fundamental aspect of human diversity. It is so, first, in the sense that, world-wide, an enormous number of people are disabled. (The proportion of people who are disabled in different national populations varies significantly with economic development, health care, and other factors, of course, but in the United States, at least, people with disabilities make up the population’s largest minority.) Furthermore, because of the way this minority is constituted, it is arguably more heterogeneous than those of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation. Disabilities may affect one’s senses or one’s mobility; they may be static or progressive, congenital or acquired, formal (affecting the shape of the body) or functional, visible or invisible.

This principle is of fundamental importance to everyone, disabled and non disabled. Article 8, of the CRPD on Awareness Raising makes it clear that it is the duty of the state to educate everyone in this fundamental principle. It says, awareness raising measures should include things like maintaining awareness of the public through campaigns that are designed:

2, a, ii: To promote positive perceptions and greater social awareness towards persons with disabilities.

Disability as part of human diversity and humanity.

 The 2017 book The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A commentary describes the function of awareness raising that governments should be doing in the following way:

“Positive perceptions and greater social awareness” are key factors in helping people with disabilities lead fulfilling lives in a society that recognises their value and the richness of human diversity. However, mere “awareness” is not enough. Awareness should lead to “understanding” and “acceptance” in order to achieve an inclusive society, respectful of human diversity. In order to achieve this objective, awareness should not be linked to a “deficit model” of disability, i.e. implying that the person has a deficit that must be corrected but be linked instead to the recognition of the strengths, skills and inherent value of disabled people, and to the understanding that each individual is a subject with rights.

Disability is indeed a part of human diversity, it is of fundamental importance to everyone. Everyone should clearly understand that disability is a part of human diversity. Armed with this knowledge it becomes easier to acknowledge disability rights which are everyone's rights and especially the human rights of all PWDs.

Convention of Rights 36: Postscript, no right is isolated

One of the most important concepts contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD) is that none of the rights are isolated. The rights presented in the convention are all dependent on each other. In other words, all the human rights in the CRPD are indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated (see Preamble, (c)). Some of the Articles at the start of the Convention are fundamentally crosscutting and have an impact on other Articles. These Articles are sometimes called articles of general application. They are:

• Article 3, General principles
• Article 4, General obligations
• Article 5, Equality and non-discrimination
• Article 6, Women with disabilities
• Article 7, Children with disabilities
• Article 8, Awareness-raising
• Article 9, Accessibility

The workbook Human Rights: Yes! further illustrates the complex interactions of the rights in the CRPD. The examples presented here show how when an Article in the Convention not met it has a knock on effect causing other Articles not to be met; for example no access to education may mean that the right to health is not met because vital education was missed. Or an Article is not met because other interrelated rights have not been met; for example a school might be fully accessible for wheelchairs, but transport to school might not be accessible for wheelchairs meaning that the right to education is not being met. The few examples cited below will make this clear.

Article 9, The right to accessibility

Persons with disabilities have the right to education, but if a school or the school’s transportation system is not physically accessible, a student who uses a wheelchair may not be able to enjoy the right to education. If the school does not provide an accessible bus, then the student must find alternative transportation to get to school. Further, if the school has steps at the front entrance and there is no ramp or other way for the student to access the building, then the student may not even be able to enter the building. Even if the student can enter the building, he or she may still encounter inaccessible bathrooms or classrooms.

Lack of accessibility may prevent persons with disabilities from enjoying their right to participation in political and public life. For instance, persons who are blind may not be able to access voter information materials if they are not provided in alternative formats such as Braille or audio. If persons who are blind do not have access to voter information, they may not know when or where to register to vote, and even if they do show up, in many cases voter registration procedures may not be accessible. Additionally, many polling stations may not provide accessibility provisions, such as Tactile Ballot Guides or audio format, for persons who are blind to vote in secret. 

Article 17, Right to personal integrity

Forcible sterilization not only denies persons with disabilities the right to have children, but is also a violation of the right to respect for personal integrity and arguably constitutes a form of violence and abuse. 

Article 21, Freedom of expression

Lack of access to education can hamper the opportunities for persons with disabilities to acquire knowledge and learn skills that contribute to developing ideas and sharing those ideas with other people. Violations of the right to privacy may discourage persons with disabilities from expressing their ideas in letters or other forms that they feel may be subject to search or confiscation. Such concerns may be heightened for people who do not enjoy the right to live independently and in the community. These people often live in institutional settings where staff or others living there may not be sufficiently respecting their right to privacy.

Article 23, Respect for home and the family

Preventing persons with disabilities from living with their families constitutes a violation of the right to live independently and be included in the community, which recognizes that persons with disabilities have the same choices as others regarding where and with whom they live. 

Lack of access to an adequate standard of living, health care, and rehabilitation services can lead to malnutrition or general ill-health and can compromise the fertility of persons with disabilities. Violations of the rights to equal recognition before the law and also freedom of expression and opinion may deprive persons with disabilities of the opportunity to make, communicate, and act upon their own decisions related to their personal relationships. Similarly, lack of accessible information may deny persons with disabilities the opportunity to learn about sexual relations, family planning, availability of support services, or other information that they need to make informed personal decisions.

Article 24, The right to education

Education helps students develop meaningful skills that they will use in future employment. If children with disabilities do not enjoy the right to education, they may not have any skills that will help them exercise their right to work. The lack of work and financial support may impact other rights, such a one’s ability to live independently or the right to home and the family. Furthermore, education is important in helping members of society become informed about issues that impact them. When persons with disabilities cannot access their right to education, they may not be able to fully enjoy their right to participation in political and public life. There are many other examples of how the right to education is central for ensuring persons with disabilities can fully enjoy all of their human rights.

A school building may be accessible for a child who uses a wheelchair, but if no accessible transportation exists, the child may not be able to attend school. Furthermore, persons with disabilities who are denied the right to live independently and are forced to live in an institution may not have access to education. 

All the rights in the CRPD are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.

An inaccessible transport system and inaccessible roads prevent this boy from getting an education.

Article 27, The right to work

A person with a disability who is unable to work and earn a fair wage may be unable to attain an adequate standard of living. This circumstance, in turn, may force that person to become dependent upon others, restricting choices and curtailing the ability to live independently in the community. In many cases, persons with disabilities who are unable to support themselves financially can become trapped in a cycle of poverty, unable to meet even their most basic needs for food, water, clothing, and shelter, or indeed raise a family as they would wish. In some countries, employment provides a means of accessing the health insurance needed to obtain health care services. Where persons with disabilities are unable to obtain employment in such countries, their access to health care services may also be restricted.

Perhaps the most far-reaching impact of the denial of the right to work is on a person’s sense of dignity and self-worth. In many societies, the ability to work is commonly viewed as one of the most important ways in which people can make their individual contributions to society, and those perceived as unable or unwilling to work may be viewed as less valuable members of that society, especially when their inability to earn a living causes them to become reliant on the support of the government or others. Thus, full enjoyment of the right to work can be of critical importance in the full inclusion of persons with disabilities as equal members of the societies in which they live, as well as in the self-image and sense of self-worth that persons with disabilities have.

These examples make it clear that all the human rights in the CRPD are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. Failure to achieve a human right might not be because that right is not met, it might be because other human rights have not been met. The human rights enunciated in the CRPD have application throughout society, from the home to the community, from the individual to the State. No one is isolated.

Convention of Rights 35: Postscript, the Rights Model of disability

The social model of disability has been heavily criticized for many years (see Convention of Rights 34: Postscript, the Social Model of disability). Disability rights activists and persons with disabilities (PWDs) have been searching for an alternative model of disability. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD) is such an alternative that seeks to redress the failings of the social model of disability. This blog post gives a brief introduction to the rights model of disability.

The medical model of disability sees disability as something that belongs to the individual. It is not an issue for anyone other than the person affected. For instance, a person using a wheelchair cannot get into a building because of steps, the medical model suggests it is because the wheelchair, not the steps that are the problem. In contrast, the social model sees the steps as a disabling barrier (see The social and medical model of disability).

Many of the States that have signed up to the CRPD subscribe to the medical model of disability, this has 2 underlying assumptions that affect the rights of PWDs (see The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A commentary):

1. PWDs need shelter and welfare.
2. Disability can mean legal incapacity.

These assumptions lead to 2 problems:

The first assumption legitimizes the segregation of PWDs in special schools, sheltered workshops and living institutions.

The second assumption has led to mental health and guardianship laws that view PWDs as incapable of decision making.

The social model of disability (see Convention of Rights 34: Postscript, the Social Model of disability) was a way of understanding the nature of disability without the failings of the medical model. It was a powerful tool in moving away from the medical model. The social model however does not address the individual's experience of disability, it rather seeks to explain disability as a social construct consisting of discrimination and oppression with its focus placed more on society than the individual. 

The rights model of disability seeks to include the individual's experience of disability into the social model of disability. The following 6 arguments presented in the 2017 book The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A commentary describe the ways the rights model redresses criticisms of the social model:

First, whereas the social model merely explains disability, the human rights model encompasses values for disability policy that acknowledge the human dignity of disabled persons. Only the human rights model can explain why all persons with disabilities have a right to be legally recognized as a person before the law.

Second, while the social model approach to disability policy supports anti-discrimination policy and civil rights reforms, the human rights model is more comprehensive in that it encompasses both sets of human rights, civil and political, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights.

A third argument is as follows: whereas the social model of disability neglects the fact that disabled persons might have to deal with pain, deterioration of quality of life, and early death due to impairment and dependency, the human rights model of disability acknowledges these life circumstances and demands them to be considered when social justice theories are developed.

Fourth, the social model of disability neglects identity politics as a valuable component of disability policy, whereas the human rights model offers room for minority and cultural identification.

The fifth argument is that while the social model of disability is critical of prevention policy, the human rights model offers a basis for assessment when prevention policy can be claimed as human rights protection for disabled persons.

The sixth argument states: whereas the social model of disability can explain why two-thirds of the one billion disabled persons in the world live in relative poverty, the human rights model offers a roadmap for change.

Disability rights are moral rights.
Tied to a rope because she is disabled.
Lisa is tied to the tree during the day, as her parents go working. Her mother says she returns home at several periods to feed and clean her up.

The book The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A commentary concludes with the following observations:

The CRPD has further developed the social model into a human rights model of disability. The latter differs from the social model in at least six aspects. First, the human rights model ensures that no person with a disability is denied legal capacity. Second, it goes beyond non-discrimination rights and includes first and second generation human rights. Third, it acknowledges that impairment matters in the life of persons with disabilities. Fourth, it recognizes that identity is composed of different layers. Fifth, it provides a roadmap for non-discriminatory preventative health policy. Sixth, the human rights model proves a roadmap for disability inclusive development and humanitarian aid.

The Committee has embraced the term “human rights model” in its more recent concluding observations. Most of the States Parties’ reports, however, do not reflect a clear understanding of the human rights model of disability. While it has become unfashionable to rely on the medical model of disability, the paradigm shift to the human rights model has yet to be reflected in implementation.

The CRPD represents a significant development over the social model it disability. Through the rights model, the moral dimension of disability can be understood. Through the rights model of disability PWDs are able more clearly to know their rights and further understand how those rights can be achieved. The State and everyone in society becomes responsible for realizing the rights of PWDs.

Convention of Rights 34: Postscript, the Social Model of disability

The social model of disability has been around since the mid-1970's. It was a useful tool for changing the attitudes of people towards persons with disabilities (PWDs) because it provided a way to understand how disability operates in society. Since being described, the social model of disability has faced many criticisms (see The social model: a victim of criticism). This blog post will will detail those criticisms.

Firstly, what is The Social Model of Disability? Put simply, a person with an impairment (impairment is used instead of disability) meets a barrier to social inclusion, it is the barrier that creates the disability. This is an over simplification but it is a useful starting point to consider the social model of disability.

The 2015 article The social model: a victim of criticism discusses the social model of disability. The articles notes that after its description in the mid-1970's the social model of disability took on a life of its own, it became the big idea behind disability equality training. It also became the central focus for developing the consciousness of PWDs and helped to develop the disabled peoples’ movement. The social model of disability was a powerful tool for understanding the rights of PWDs:

Armed with the idea that we needed to identify and eradicate the disabling barriers we faced, the disabled people’s movement forced the media to change their images of us and transport providers to open up many of their services to us; public buildings became much more accessible and the legal system changed to make it illegal to discriminate against us.

The model was open to criticism which can be divided in 3 ways:

1. Embodiment: The experience of the PWD as they confront society.
2. Oppression: How the PWD is oppressed by society.
3. Inadequate theoretical basis: The theory is not developed enough and terms used need further development and discussion.

These criticisms are summed up in the 2014 article Exploring the critiques of the social model of disability: the transformative possibility of Arendt’s notion of power and they are listed here. The social model of disability:

• Does not engage with embodied experience and although separating the body from culture has meant political gains it has been at the cost of disabled people’s identities. This ‘gifts’ the body to medical interpretation.
• Focus is on physical impairment, and does not take difference into consideration; creating a hierarchy of impairment. This also ignores people with chronic illness and fluctuating impairments, delegitimising their status as disabled. Research may reify this position because it ignores impaired experience.
• Is essentialist because it ignores embodied experience, reifying the social; thereby limiting understandings of disability because personal experiences and social barriers remain undifferentiated.
• Engaging with the politics of disablement favours a materialist/Marxist worldview which means ignoring disabled people’s embodied experiences.
• Oppression is present in society but it takes different forms both explicit and implicit, but when and how these forms materialise is unclear. Oppression may also be transmitted by culture, but little is known of how oppression moderates the relationships between culture, language and socialisation.
• Oppression is a somewhat nebulous concept because it is not understood how attitudes become translated into actions, and if indeed this actually occurs.
• Oppression is poorly understood and therefore any further development of the social model is limited by the lack of conceptualisation.
• In concentrating entirely on oppression the social model of disability has become a straw man and is at risk of doing a disservice to disabled people.
• Disability is not an absolute dichotomy and there is a strong relationship between disability, social practices and impairment.
• Displays a priori thinking concerning oppression, applying it to all disabled people in defining disability as oppression.
• Using oppression in one form; the social, is a mistake because it reifies disability as the physical.
• The social model of disability needs to be further developed in order to fully explain disabled people’s experiences.
• The components of disability need to be further conceptualised in order to improve the explanatory power of the social model.

The 2004 paper The Social Model of Disability: A Philosophical Critique sums up the discussion:

As a concluding note I suggest that, despite its internal limits, the social model of disability nevertheless acts as a powerful and important corrective to our understanding of disability, to simplistic views on the experience of disability and, more importantly, to the oppressive nature of some social arrangements. This is the actual powerful core value of the model, its constant reminder to face issues of inclusion as fundamental moral issues.

From the above discussion it is clear that the social model is in need of improvement. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD) provides a new rights based model for the consideration of disability which will be considered in the next post.