Delighted to learn that the preparatory work done on behalf of UNDP Botswana has now yielded the adoption of a Persons with Disabilities Law on the occasion of Persons with Disabilities Day. As a consultant it is a delicate task to try and understand the inner workings of a country and its administration, adding international obligations and the growing practice to support changes that will have a meaningful impact on the lived experience of persons with disabilities, it appears that in the case of Botswana a good mix of national self-representation, national legal expertise and international support brought about the necessary change towards a more inclusive and accessible society.
A discussion with Harsha Saxena of the International Institute of Corporate Social Responsibility about the meaning and possibilities of social sustainability. Sustainability involves a lot more than just environmental aspects. Importantly, the angle of equality – and inequality – has a major role to play in seeking paths forward that make life styles more sustainable. The choices made need to include all and particularly those less represented and least visible in policy discussions.
Following a long determined path, human rights have forged their way into these discussions and many policies, particularly those by the European Union, are specifically integrating human rights obligations into sustainability measures:
In a recent hearing in the US Supreme Court, the Justices made a mockery of stalking victims, according to the analysis of Mary Anne Franks who observes, among others:
The justices’ message was clear: Stalking is not the problem; sensitivity is. To them, stalking is quite literally a state of mind: If the stalker didn’t mean for his conduct to be frightening, then it isn’t. All the target has to do is understand that; she just needs to lighten up, take a joke, accept the compliment, grasp the lesson. Just because someone has made objectively terrifying statements is no reason to overreact and get law enforcement involved; victims should wait for the stalker to do something really frightening before they jump to conclusions.
On October 1, 2022 I delivered the Memorial Lecture at Hartheim, the live stream is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV4z8fIM1oU, the text of my lecture:
Welcome to you: who have come as experts in your own right, as self-advocates, to commemorate the murder of persons with disabilities.
Welcome to all of you who have lost a relative or loved one to almost immeasurable acts.
To all of you who have come here today to commemorate the victims of Nazi euthanasia and to reinforce the “never again” that must necessarily result from it: welcome.
In all the uncertainties, shocks that surround us at the moment, it is difficult to find a beginning. One is no longer sure whether the speed of events is “only” the distortions of growing inequalities and the climate catastrophe or also, to a certain extent, the momentum attributed to illiberal currents.
It is a lot, often too much, and it seems increasingly difficult to find moments of reflection. In particular, common groundand the unity seem to have currently receive little space.
A few weeks ago, aspiring musicians from Ukraine demonstrated their skills at a concert in Salzburg. While they were playing enchantingly, a few thoughts inevitably ran through my head: “Do the musicians know how their closest relatives and friends are doing? When did they last see their family? Will they ever play in front of them again? When will there be concerts of this kind in Ukraine again …?”
And then my eyes fell on the make of the grand piano: exactly the same that my grandmother once played in Garmisch. And with it – along with so many other things that resonated – also the question of how the light-heartedness of her childhood in the Bavarian mountains could evaporate as it did.
In the omnipresence that memories can develop, it is one thing to know rationally how National Socialism arose and led people to authorise innumerable atrocities, to set them in motion or to make them possible by omission; at the same time, the consequences of National Socialism remain elusive on a personal level.
My grandmother, Annemarie Klein, sold her piano after she fled, having married Ernst Böhm at a very young age. She got on very well with her father-in-law, Adolf Böhm. Together with his son, he ran a cotton factory in Wilhelminenstraße in Vienna. It was a modern company that attached great importance to good working conditions. Adolf Böhm took an interest in – political – Zionism ‘on the side’, as it were. He wrote one of the standard works on Zionism that is still in use today: “The Zionist Movement.” In addition, there are numerous articles and speeches by him.
His involvement as a member of the Jewish Community and his book on Zionism attracted the interest of Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann wanted a list of the “most prominent Jews” from Adolf Böhm and therefore made daily appearances at the factory from 14 March 1938. After several weeks, according to anecdotal evidence, the pressure was once again massively increased and the library sealed. This was too much for a book lover like Adolf Böhm; my great-grandfather had a nervous breakdown and was taken to several psychiatric intermediate stations as part of the T4 actionand murdered here in Hartheim in April 1941.
In the meticulous, systematic murder of prominent people in particular, all traces were covered up and files destroyed. In addition, there was also deliberate misinformation, such as that according to which my great-grandfather died of “pneumonia” in Chelm, Poland. “Fake news“ of the time, which also made it into the Encyclopedia Judaica.
One runs out of words in an effort to capture and express these atrocities and especially the mixture of ruthlessness and meticulousness.
This makes all the more important the answers that the then still young community of states found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the end of National Socialism:
“All human beings are born equal in rights and dignity …”
The reality of life for persons with disabilities globally – and also in Austria – fails daily to meet this claim to guarantee equal opportunities and the implementation of all human rights. Ensuring that persons with disabilities are respected, that their self-determination is strengthened and recognised, and that they can lead an equal life, is far too often still a shadowy sketch of the future instead of factual reality.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was finally negotiated in 2006, guarantees all persons with disabilities all rights and the associated dignity in everyday life. To recognise that persons with disabilities are self-determining and have a right to live their self-determination.
Incidentally, the assistance that persons with disabilities sometimes need in shaping their self-determination is not so fundamentally different from assistance that the so-called ‘chronically normal’[1] people use on a daily basis. It is the level of detail of information and methods, but not the act of self-empowerment that goes on between an opinion-forming process in a random board office, the cabinet of a provincial governor or just in supported decision-making. But it is still perfectly acceptable to comprehensively devalue the decision-making of persons with disabilities without putting a stop to the abelism or paternalism encoded therein.
This is also why we are taking massive steps backwards in education: segregation of persons with disabilities is commonplace, the well-meaning references to the importance of inclusion are nothing more than phrases. This is first and foremost a human rights violation vis-à-vis persons with disabilities who have a right to equal participation in a school of their preference and choice. But it is also a symptom of a school system that increasingly fails to do justice to anyone, learners and teachers alike.
The catastrophe that is looming here has been vividly described by the Court of Audit, among others: the regulations in this area are so outdated and impracticable that school trials and pilot projects have been permanently established at more than half of Austria’s federal schools in order to avoid arcane rules. The steadily growing number of functionally illiterate – completely devoid of any ethnic attributions – people across all social strata should have prompted everyone to act for decades.
No less alarming and scandalous is the fact that in 2022 persons with disabilities are again be increasingly dependent on donations. A life of self-determination is still possible for very few persons with disabilities, the mechanisms of exclusion are too strong, the need to “alleviate suffering” with handouts instead of actually making equality possible with rights and de facto empowerment, as the obligations for the federal and state governments in the Convention stipulate, is too deep-seated. The pandemic and inflation are dramatically affecting people in precarious working conditions, but also those who are living on social benefits that are too low to start with.
A third and final example: structural accessibility, where the “neglect of civility” for equal participation, to a truly representative democracy measured against legal and human rights commitments, is currently progressing rapidly. Far too often, structural accessibility is not implemented, or far too often people believe that they know what is required and then wonder about the stairs that have not been considered or the door frames that are far too narrow. The fact is, rooms in which everyone has enough space have been guaranteed in various regulations. And: as soon as rooms are structurally accessible, everyone feels much more comfortable and welcome.
What do the examples of education, the failure to guarantee social security and structural accessibility have in common? The exclusion of persons with disabilities continues to happen primarily at the structural level.
Structural means: it is difficult to attribute exclusion and human rights violations to individual persons. It is the way decisions are made, the processes by which permits are granted, the specifications that serve as the basis for planning that prevent all people from experiencing safety, equality and well-being.
In this structure of non-responsibilities, those who were already partially excluded are more vehemently marginalised. Because prejudice, stigma and other aspects of exclusion are constantly reinforced in this mix. And we all know, which socio-political tendencies and political ideas gain particular momentum as a result.
This is precisely why a commemoration in Hartheim is necessary and also particularly painful: the exclusion of personswith disabilities is an indicator of the basic constitution of a democracy’s claim to equality.
More stigma and prejudice tends to flow into the exclusion of persons with disabilities than into the exclusion of other groups of people, also because the demarcation between “normal” and “not normal” is drawn particularly harsh. And all the more urgent and insistent a “never again!” here in Hartheim, today and every day.
Implementing the anti-fascist basic consensus means in particular respecting and implementing all human rights for all. “All human beings are born equal in rights and dignity” also means a self-critical approach to structural violence, be it in education, in the prevention of inhuman and degrading treatment or in dealing with those who are actively threatened for their opinions, as has happened in a number of cases in recent years and most recently ended fatally for Dr. Lisa-Maria Kellermayr.
We must do more to make human rights a reality, especially where responsibilities seem to get lost and no one seems to be legally accountable. For it is precisely in this supposed space between legal and moral responsibility that the momentum is created for a growing number of human rights violations – also by omission – and thus the impetus for anti-democratic currents.
This makes the commemoration here at Hartheim Castle all the more important. And the daily efforts of the team of the learning and memorial site to convey facts, to point out developments, to classify mechanisms that discriminate and exclude and other aspects that made the emergence and National Socialism itself possible.
The focus of the educational work is on young people, who are made aware of the almost incomprehensible, who are sensitised to mechanisms of exclusion as well as to the consequences of unquestioned norms: legal as well as biological. Another focus of the activities of the learning and memorial site is the inclusion of persons with disabilities. Dealing with the inhumane treatment of impairment requires a high degree of sensitivity and empathy. Other mediation methods are also needed to actually ensure an accessible space. An example of this is the new permanent exhibition, which was designed with a lot of thought and heart and is now rightly acclaimed and brings many visitors to this difficult place.
Ongoing research around the National Socialist euthanasia programme, here and at other sites, complements the work of the learning and memorial site. I would like to thank the board and the team for their enormous commitment, their constant efforts to convey the unimaginable in a factual, inclusive and accessible way and the daily renewal of “never again!” as well as the affirmation of human rights here at Hartheim Castle.
In keeping with a growing tradition of commemoration, I now invite you to a minute of silence and remembrance, and may I conclude by asking you: use your human right to freedom of expression, speak about the importance of ensuringall human rights for all.
The UN has published the annual report to the Commission for Social Development focused on challenges in reducing poverty globally, particularly in economically under-resourced countries. The Commission meets annually in the first half of February and focuses on “development policies” in the broadest sense. (As stated in my recently published contribution to “Accessible Technology in the Developing World” the term ‘developing country’ is quite fraught.)
Leaving that aside for a moment, the summary of the impact of the pandemic on persons living in poverty or on the economic margins of impoverishment are staggering. None of the issues comes as a great surprise but the succinct nature of such overviews is powerful – if not to say overwhelming:
School closures disrupted the delivery and implementation of many initiatives (such as school feeding and free food programmes) that are aimed at addressing malnutrition among children in many countries.
School closures also made it more difficult to retain girls in school and increased the incidence of gender-based violence, child abuse, child marriage and child labour.
While online education was implemented during the pandemic, the existing digital divide combined with inadequate training of teachers threatened access and the quality of education.
As online learning does not sufficiently address their special needs, students with disabilities are at greater risk of being left behind.
The pandemic severely affected mental health, especially among young people.
The limited capacity of hospitals and inability for outreach workers to deliver treatment owing to restrictions on movement has limited access to health screenings and treatment, with negative impacts for all people, especially older persons, people living with HIV, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, migrants and other minority populations.
Other challenges include the low density of health-care workers in rural areas and increases in out-of-pocket health expenditure.
National policies and measures implemented by Member States to combat hunger and poverty in times of the coronavirus disease pandemic and beyond: challenges to get on track towards the full implementation of the 2030 Agenda E/CN.5/2022/5
A new book “Accessible Technology & the Developing World” discusses the failures of inaccessible technology in resource constraint settings (developing world) and provides examples of increasing accessibility. In the opening chapter ‘Development for All: How Human Rights Break Down Barriers to Technology’ I provide an overview:
Development efforts—the provision of support to countries with lesser economic resources—have long overlooked persons with disabilities. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) tries to rectify this with a stand-alone provision on inclusive development, ensuring that efforts to accelerate economic growth and related factors are inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities. This chapter discusses the rationale behind the stand-alone provision and the potential it holds for more equitable and inclusive growth, including the role that technology plays in increasing accessibility.
The private and public realms of life are in large part culturally defined as female and male, respectively. Various human rights treaties and political agreements call on States to enable women to participate in the male-dominated public sphere. Obstacles abound for girls and women, who find themselves excluded not only because of their gender but also when they experience mental health problems and the perceived consequences, including potential “dangerousness.” Manifold factors play into the state of mental health of girls and women, among them the status quo of gender relations, the interactions with every day life, and the consequences of male-oriented health policies. The latter do not adequately cater to the accessibility needs of girls and women, especially those with mental health problems.
My paper with Prof. Peter Bartlett in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Urgently awaiting implementation: The right to be free from exploitation, violence and abuse in Article 16 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is currently (limited time) available for free download.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) enshrines the freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse, a provision, which has hitherto received little attention. Exploring the contents of Article 16, this paper seeks to unpack both the potential for violence prevention as well as the implementation challenges. It situates violence protection within related treaty provisions and touches on specific challenges in institutional care as well as the private realm.
Exploitation, violence and abuse are frequent, yet often overlooked and under-reported. The societal forces that tend to marginalise persons with disabilities exacerbate the likelihood and the impact of exploitation, violence and abuse. This study explores the concepts, causes and impact of the exploitation, violence and abuse experienced by persons with disabilities, with particular attention given to institutional aspects and the impact of hate speech.
The Chinese New Year of the Fire Rooster coincides with a decade of freelance work. It has been an extraordinary experience and I look forward to adding a few more years of human rights work because: all human rights for all!
The Komagata Maru incident: 376 passengers of mostly Sikh descent arrived in Vancouver and were refused entry into Canada due to the discriminatory laws of the time 102 years ago. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced he will apologise in the House of Commons on May 18: “As a nation, we should never forget the prejudice suffered by the Sikh community at the hands of the Canadian government of the day. We should not – and we will not.”
“An apology made in the House of Commons will not erase the pain and suffering of those who lived through that shameful experience. But an apology is not only the appropriate action to take, it’s the right action to take, and the House is the appropriate place for it to happen.”
The World Health Organization’s Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2020 stipulates human rights as a cross-cutting principle (WHO, 2013) and foresees global targets to update policies as well as mental health laws in line with international and regional human rights instruments. The international human rights agreements repeatedly refer to health, including mental health. The most pertinent provisions related to mental health are enshrined in the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which sets out human rights in an accessible and inclusive fashion to ensure the equal participation of persons with disabilities. The inconclusive description of disability in the treaty overtly refers to ‘mental impairment’ as part of an explicitly evolving understanding of disability. This text sketches some of the underlying concepts as they apply to the realm of mental health: non-discrimination of persons with disabilities and measures that should be taken to ensure accessibility in a holistic understanding; removal of social and attitudinal barriers as much as communication and intellectual barriers but also institutional hurdles. The CRPD’s paradigm shift away from framing disability mainly through deficits towards a social understanding of disability as the result of interaction and focusing on capacity is the core on which the provision of mental health services at community level to enable participation in society shall be ensured. Questions of capacity, also to make decisions and the possible need for support in so doing, are sketched out.
As 2015 draws to a close, the annual New Year’s greeting designed by Bueronardin. This year’s focus is the upcoming leap year: skip the beat, it’s a leap year!
Reviews for Human Rights and Disability Advocacy, which I co-edited with Maya Sabatello are trickling in. Kate Donald’s review for the LSE’s blog noted that the book “is not only a fascinating insight into the evolution of the CRPD, but also an extremely valuable exploration of how advocacy works in practice.” Kate Donald adds: “Each of the contributions shares lessons and tools that can inspire and inform all advocates for social justice.”
The review by Contemporary Sociology echoes a general sentiment that the book provides “unique insight” and helps to “illuminate the process” of negotiating the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Tom Shakespeare in his review for Disability & Society calls it an “invaluable book” and stresses that it is “the first to explore the background to the treaty and drafting process.” He commends the book as “excellent,” it “gives valour to the Treaty negotiations and will certainly help scholars and advocates to understand the CRPD.”
Christopher Riddle in the Law and Politics Book Review summarises the book as “a collection of original, analytical and explanatory essays,” and describes it as “both incredibly interesting and important as a collection of essays,” which provides “wonderful retrospective insights gained” as well as an “incredibly rich reading experience.” Riddle summarises the book as “skilfully crafted, carefully blending the conceptual and the historical and political, all the while never losing sight of what is most important: the rights and experiences of people with disabilities.”
On July 15 I will discuss supported decision-making at IASSIDD, here is the abstract:
With the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in force in a majority of the world’s countries, the necessity to frame human rights inclusively and accessibly is firmly established. The move from wanting to “fix” people by focusing on perceived deficits and medical aspects of impairment to needing to “fix” societies by reducing attitudinal barriers is underway, still haltingly in many places.
Enabling and empowering persons with disabilities is comparatively easily done on an individual basis. The negotiation of the Convention itself is a case in point on how processes can shift quite dramatically, when the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities is made possible. Importantly, a lot can be learned generally from this and related processes in how marginalized groups can and should contribute to mainstream policy and law development.
The profound challenges of the Convention’s implementation arise at the law and policy level and in its application to larger institutions. How does one shift from well-tested routines and carefully planned and well-intentioned procedures to an approach that empowers people to live independently? How does one move from cotton-wooling people to embracing their need – and right – to make mistakes, go overboard and transgress?
A core expression of the right of all persons with disabilities to equally enjoy all human rights is the right to act their legal capacity. The application of this provision (Article 12 CRPD) raises some profound challenges in enabling the decision-making of persons with disabilities.
But does it really?
Granted: there is a need for more assistance, increased support and added resources. But is there really such a difference in what we describe as supported decision-making for persons with disabilities to what people in the so-called mainstream practice every day? How, exactly, is the process of a prime minister being advised by an army of advisers different from supporting the decision-making of someone who has an intellectual impairment?
Not wanting to diminish the responsibilities of prime ministers and the complexity of some of the issues placed before them: it appears that we are all too easily pushing the decision-making of persons with disabilities into a special realm with separate rules and different standards, which are also linked to status and its attached economic might.
The idea of inclusion is not just that we enable persons with disabilities to be equal, to enjoy the same rights and freedoms – as they should have already for a long time. The challenge lies in questioning the ways in which the mainstream operates routinely and how persons with disabilities – due to being labeled “different” and “special” and “needy” – are missing out.
None of the representatives in mainstream society and leadership positions would ever think that they have support in decision-making. But very few people actually make bigger purchases or investments without consulting “someone.” The social and cultural codes that are applied here, are frequently denied to persons with disabilities, particularly in those settings where they are separated and treated “differently.”
Persons who have guardians point to the impact of their guardianship on their social and societal standing. They report feeling stigmatized and sensing the effect of their guardianship in areas of life beyond their guardianship’s scope. While well intentioned and often reasonably applied, guardianship creates and reinforces stigma. The CRPD provides an opportunity to revisit engrained routines and calls into question the most well meaning of policies.
Revising such policies, including some important legal questions that require thorough examination, a core obligation of the CRPD has to be upheld and implemented: ensuring the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities at every stage (Article 4 (3) CRPD). As the first experiences prove, meaningful participation fundamentally changes the conversation; it also improves the quality of the outcome in immeasurable ways.
Inclusion also means that we keep in mind that the Conventions is not a special set of provisions for persons with disabilities: it is firmly grounded in the human rights obligations that precede it. Importantly, the right to act legal capacity is also enshrined in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Article 15 thereof. If one ponders the significant changes that women’s liberation has brought across the globe – and not withstanding the manifold gaps that still mar the road to gender equality – one gleans the profoundness of the paradigm shift that is encapsulated in the right to act legal capacity.
In going forward it is in everyone’s interest to ensure the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities. The obligation of the CRPD should be used to advance the quality of the debate rather than be viewed as a cumbersome obstacle. It is equally important to remember the ways in which society can push itself, e.g. changes and ongoing challenges in gender equality. The support for decision-making of those in power, e.g. prime ministers, should be our guiding light in ensuring the empowerment of persons with disabilities to make their own decisions – including: mistakes!
A helpful illustration on the health impact of violence against women by the World Health Organization: women exposed to violence are amongst others twice as likely to suffer from mental health problems and also twice as likely to abuse substances such as alcohol, among others. Note that more than a third of incidents of violence – 38% – are reportedly committed by intimate partners.
On the occasion of Women’s Day, a series of graphic graphics by the UK’s DFID on the situation of women and girls in developing countries focusing on obstacles to personal and corresponding overall economic & societal development:
As this business year – it is the eighth for humanrightsconsultant.at – draws to a close, the annual card created by the highly gifted Christof Nardin has been distributed across the globe. The seasonal greeting is by standard in accessible format, including Braille. This year’s greeting jumps ahead with a reference to the upcoming Chinese Year of the Horse, depicting a green horse and the Braille message: Jump! Utilize the Year of the Green Horse.
The United Nations adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) constituted a paradigm shift in attitudes and approaches to disability rights, marking the first time in law-making history that persons with disabilities participated as civil society representatives
and contributed to the drafting of an international treaty. On the way, they brought a new kind of diplomacy forward: empowering nongovernmental stakeholders, including persons with disabilities, within human rights discourse. This landmark treaty provides an opportunity to consider what it means to involve members of a global civil society in UN-level negotiations.
Human Rights and Disability Advocacy brings together perspectives from individual representatives of the Disabled People’s Organizations (DPOs), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), indigenous peoples’ organizations, states, and national institutions that played leading roles in the Conven- tion’s drafting process. The contributors provide vivid and personal accounts of the paths to victory, including stumbling blocks—not all of which were overcome—and offer a unique look into the politics of civil society organizations both from within and in its interaction with governments. Each essay describes the nonnegotiable key issues for which they advocated; the extent of success in reaching their goals; and insights into the limitations they faced. Through the plurality of voices and insider perspectives, Human Rights and Disability Advocacy presents fresh perspectives on the shift toward a new diplomacy and explores the implication of this model for human rights advocacy more generally.
“The authors have embarked on a fascinating, original, and groundbreaking project to tell the story of how the CRPD came to be.”—Michael Perlin, New York Law School
The BBC reports that Chilean judges have issued an apology for their lack of action in response to motions seeking to save victims of the Pinochet Regime. The statement by the National Association of Magistrates of the Judiciary states: “the time has come to ask for the forgiveness of the victims … and of Chilean society.”
Disability comes in various forms – mobility, vision, hearing, sensual – and affects people of all walks of life. Refugees are no exception: on the contrary, they represent as much a kaleidoscope of society as any other realm of life. What is more: wars, armed conflict and other causes of humanitarian crisis as well as situations of risk can often lead to animpairment, including by landmines, cluster munitions or other explosive remnants of war.
Impairments and physical and social barriers combined, result indisabilities. A “Chronically normal person” is a label that can be attributed to those persons who believe that they do not have an impairment of any sort.
As has been highlighted in the past, soccer is no human-rights-haven; on the contrary a lot needs to be done to make sure that human rights are applied in stadiums and around, particularly non-discrimination. It is thus a welcome BBC-read that FIFA is taking steps to have more sanctions in place to reduce discriminatory behavior on and particularly around the soccer fields.
A powerful documentary in the Washington Post on gun violence. Includes a portrait of Mary Jane Ledgerwood, Priest in charge, Grace Episcopal Church, The Plains:
In her message in celebration of Women’s Day, Michelle Bachelet, UN Women Executive Director states:
My message today is simple and straightforward. This year on International Women’s Day, we say enough is enough. Discrimination and violence against women and girls has no place in the 21st century. It is time for Governments to keep their promises and protect human rights in line with the international conventions and agreements that they signed onto. A promise is a promise.
In a NYTimes Editorial the “Spread the Word to End the Word” campaign is featured with a particularly poignant text. Lawrence Downes quotes a self-advocate of Bestbuddies, John Franklin Stephens to explain why the “r-word” is unacceptable. By the way this week is “End the R Word” campaign week:
I know people who care about language who do not see themselves as heartless and who do not see “retardation” as anything to get worked up about. To them, banishing the R-word for another clinical-sounding term is like linguistic Febreze: masking unpleasantries with cloying euphemisms.In this, as in other cases of discrimination, it’s probably best to let those affected speak for themselves.
Here is John Franklin Stephens, a man from Virginia with Down syndrome who serves as a “global messenger” for the Special Olympics. He has written op-ed articles giving lucid voice to thoughts you may never have heard before:
“The hardest thing about having an intellectual disability is the loneliness,” he once wrote in The Denver Post. “We are aware when all the rest of you stop and just look at us. We are aware when you look at us and just say, ‘unh huh,’ and then move on, talking to each other. You mean no harm, but you have no idea how alone we feel even when we are with you.”
“So, what’s wrong with ‘retard’?,” he asked. “I can only tell you what it means to me and people like me when we hear it. It means that the rest of you are excluding us from your group. We are something that is not like you and something that none of you would ever want to be. We are something outside the ‘in’ group. We are someone that is not your kind.”
A photograph of the two finance ministers of Germany and the United States of America, respectively, conferring. Mr. Schäuble of Germany has been a wheel-chair user following an assassination attempt in 1990.
The fall-out from gendercide continues as the Washington Post reports of the Middle Class’ preference for boys. The growing gap is compensated with yet another human rights violation: trafficking. As the BBC reports there is a growing trend to kidnap girls and young women to bring them to other parts of the country to “stand in” for the girls and women missing due to gendercide.
The Member States of the Convention on Cluster Munitions are meeting for the third time, returning to Oslo, Norway, where the treaty was first opened for signature. Member States are rightly hailing the speed with which cluster munitions have been stigmatized.
The School of Nursing and Human Sciences at Dublin City University hosted an interactive conference where speakers, performers and conference participants will explore the prevailing impact of dysfunctional oppressive communication patterns on marginalised communities.
A report on the Mental Health Trialogue Network Ireland (MHTNI) a community development initiative in Irish mental health was launched. The Network aims to empower communities in Ireland to become proactive in communicating about mental health through an open dialogue and participatory process called ‘Trialogue’.
The 140-characters blog Twitter has recently faced some scrutiny over its balance between business interests and the defense of freedom of speech. In a portrait of Twitter’s lawyer, Alexander Macgillivray, the NYTimes observes:
This is a reality of the digital age. Sovereign nations have their laws. Internet companies have their rules.
A group of women who participated in the suffragettes celebration of the Olympic opening ceremony plan to become activists and march to the UK parliament in October to stand up for women’s equality, reports the Guardian.
Ahead of the Paralympic Games, the Guardian reports on an initiative to train persons with disabilities as reports for the games, another indicator of the efforts aimed at creating the most accessible and inclusive Olympic experience of all times.
As the adoption of the Universal Declaration is celebrated for the 63rd time, the world reflects on major achievements but more so the enormous amount of work that still needs to be done to make all human rights a reality for all. As people around the world still fight for the recognition of their basic human rights it is a timely occasion to remember those at the forefront in advocating for human rights: human rights defenders, who frequently endanger their lives to demand the promotion and protection of human rights around the world.
