Download - juridikum, zeitschrift für kritik | recht | gesellschaft

thema
and policies. Solidarity 10 refers to the need to view life as
a shared membership. This manifests itself in the disability
context in the removal of barriers, not just through civil rights
and non-discrimination law but where necessary by way of
additional support. The authors argued that by using these
four values it is possible to conceptualize a system of basic
freedoms, which advances and supports human rights.
This approach was reflected in the methodology used
to generate one of the initial papers drafted to support the
CRPD negotiation process. A 2002 inter-regional meeting
in Mexico brought together some leading disability advocates,
and the outcome document included “Principles for
Drafting a New Treaty”. Mirroring the Study, it stated that
the Convention should be grounded on values of independent
living, liberty, dignity, self-determination, equality and
social solidarity.
Subsequently, the United Nations 11 requested contributions
to the negotiations process to include a section “Principles
to be embodied in the Convention”. There was a wide
range of responses, including non-discrimination, equality
of opportunity, autonomy, participation and integration 12 autonomy
and self-determination; 13 diversity, full citizenship
and social inclusion; 14 the right to full participation, right to
take control of their own lives, right to dignity, tolerance and
inclusion, right to life; 15 integrity, liberty, social justice, selfdetermination
and self-representation; 16 the right to respect,
dignity, self-representation, determination, and independence
to make one’s own choices and decisions; 17 equality,
self-determination and social solidarity; 18 equality, liberty,
independence, dignity, self-determination, social solidarity,
personal autonomy, and non-discrimination. 19
2.2. The content of the general principles
Subsequent to this round of proposals, there was little discussion
on the need for a separate article on general principles.
Rather, the discussion centered on what the principles should
be. Notably, respect for difference did not appear in the first
round of submissions, despite being touched on in the Study.
Specifically, the Study stated “it means locating problems
outside the disabled person and addressing the manner in
which various economic and social processes accommodate
the difference of disability – or not, as the case may be. The
debate about the rights of the disabled is therefore connected
to a larger debate about the place of difference in society.” 20
The Study argued that “the main human rights challenge is
accommodating the difference of disability […].” 21
In the context of other human rights treaties, difference
has occasionally been addressed in discrimination discussions.
22 For example, the CRC Committee, in discussing
the importance of education, 23 has highlighted the need to
“[reconcile] diverse values through dialogue and respect for
difference.” 24 The Committee underscored the sources for
negative and harmful consequences of disrespect for difference,
pointing to “ignorance, unfounded fears of racial,
ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic or other forms of
difference, the exploitation of prejudices, or the teaching or
dissemination of distorted values.” 25
To streamline the CRPD’s drafting process, a Working
Group was established to draw up a text that would form
the basis of negotiations. The Secretariat produced a “draft
elements” paper with Article 1 “Objects of the Convention
and underlying principles,” including the “principle of diversity
and recognition of the right to be different.” This was
based on one of the many contributions called the “Bangkok
Draft”. 26 The torch, once lit, was passed through the
process: 27 New Zealand included the need to “recognize the
diversity of disabled people” in its Statement of Principles
and Objectives. 28 The Working Group confirmed that there
should be a separate article on General Principles, which
included “respect for difference and acceptance of disability
as part of human diversity and humanity.” 29
But as the records of the next round of negotiations show,
the purpose of the respect was not yet clear. While Mexico
supported the EU’s proposal to foster “respect for difference”
10) Subtitled “social support for a free and
equal people”, Quinn/Degener, Study 12.
11) See, Secretariat for the Committee, the
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(DESA), note verbale to Member States and
International Organizations requesting contributions
and proposals for a Convention for
the second session of the Ad Hoc Committee
(AHC), 2003.
12) The European Union’s document
“Elements of a Convention” submitted to the
Second Session of the AHC, included a section
called “General Principles”.
13) Self-determination here is used as far as
persons with intellectual disability are concerned
that means to abolish paternalistic
guardianship laws.
14) Submission, Inclusion International; all
submissions: http://www.un.org/disabilities
(18.10.2007).
15) Submission, World Blind Union.
16) Submission, European Disability Forum,
which followed the DESA note verbale framework
in its contribution.
17) Submission, World Federation for the
Deaf.
18) Submission, World Network of Users and
Survivors of Psychiatry.
19) Submission, International Disability Alliance
(IDA), IDA, an umbrella group, acknowledged
in its submission that it had borrowed
“heavily” from documents prepared for the Expert
Interregional Meeting in Mexico in 2002.
20) Quinn/Degener, Study 1.
21) Ibid 2.
22) Committee on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
Committee, General Comments 24, paras 6
and 25, para 8. The CEDAW Committee has
noted that allegedly gender ‘neutral’ laws,
policies and programmes, are based on differences
in understanding, which “may exist
because of stereotypical expectations, attitudes
and behaviour directed towards women,
which are not based on biological differences.”
CEDAW Committee, General Comment 25,
footnote 1.
23) See Article 29 of the CRC.
24) CRC Committee, General Comment 1,
para 4 (emphasis added).
25) Ibid, para 11.
26) See the Bangkok Draft, December 2003,
Preparation for the Convention’s Working
Group, Article 1: “The States Parties declare
that the purpose of this Convention is to ensure
that persons with disabilities enjoy the
full range of human rights and fundamental
freedoms set out in this Convention in the light
of the following principles and irrespective of
the origin, nature, degree and cause of a person’s
disability […] (c) the principle of diversity
and recognition of the right to be different.”
27) For documents and records of the negotiations,
see http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/
enable (18.10.2007).
28) The New Zealand Statement of Principles
and Objectives proposed to “recognise the diversity
of disabled people and their contexts in
relation to gender, race, colour, age and ethnicity
must to be taken into account”, ”diversity
of disability” and “‘disablement’ or ‘disability’ is
the common experience that provides a common
framework for a convention promoting the
rights of disabled people whereas the experiences
of impairments is very diverse.”
29) Report of the Working Group to the AHC,
A/AC.265/2004/WG/1, Annex 1, Article 2
(2004).
Seite 46 juridikum 2008 / 1