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:
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 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.
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!
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.”
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.
The plurality of media outlets is under scrutiny these days. The UN Committee on the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in its discussion in 1983 of the implications of Article 19 CCPR (Freedom of Opinion) has stated:
“little attention has so far been given to the fact that, because of the development of modern mass media, effective measures are necessary to prevent such control of the media interfering with the right of everyone to freedom of expression,”
“By this sentence, the Committee managed to come to unite these kinds of worries by careful wording, but what it means is that any kind of concentration, any kind of control of the media, is harmful to the enjoyment of this freedom. Sometimes the Committee acts in a very “superstitious” way. It does not mention things that should be mentioned.”
Now the Committee is working on a new statement, which shall also be more specific on the issue of diversity of ownership:
“States parties should take appropriate action, consistent with the Covenant, to prevent undue media dominance or concentration by privately controlled media groups in monopolistic situations that may be harmful to a diversity of sources and views.”
The important report of the International Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victim Assistance, ITF, which highlights the impact of landmines, particularly on children uses some very powerful imagery to convey the message:
The BBC features an unsung hero on the theory behind the current uprisings of societies in the Middle East: Dr. Gene Sharp is credited with sketching what it takes for people to rise and demand equality, justice, accountability and other features of democracy.
The Austrian Daily Salzburger Nachrichten published the following cartoon by Thomas Wizany on the occasion of People’s Republic of China President Hu’s State Visit to the United States:
President Obama is holding a board that depicts Mr. Hu with his name – Hu – underneath, the shape of a person with the description “man” underneath and an arrow to the right, the bottom line reading Hu + Man + Rights. President Hu looks at the board quizzically.
New Year. Old challenges. The Guardian discusses the perpetually important issue that while private charity and welfare may be a necessary societal cause it does not let the public off the hook of responsibility.
The NYTimes reports that India is discussing the constitutional recognition of the right to food. While obviously part of a political debate, which also eyes likely effects in upcoming elections, the essential question is: should there be a right, an entitlement to have access to basic food stuffs?
On July 28 2010 the United Nations’ General Assembly declared access to clean water a human right. So far, access to water has been interpreted as part of the right to food as enshrined in Article 11 of the Covenant on Economic & Social Rights, which states inter alia:
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.
The Committee charged with monitoring the implementation of the Covenant and its interpretation, in 2002 explained in great detail why water is an essential part of food, declaring:
The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights.
The move by the General Assembly adds to this the weight of a resolution, recognizing the importance of access to clean water on a human rights based approach.
In dissecting the complexity of migration, the Commissioner rightly warns of the implications of language in public debates:
The choice of language is very important to the image which the authorities project to their population and the world. Being an immigrant becomes associated, through the use of language, with illegal acts under the criminal law. All immigrants become tainted by suspicion. Illegal immigration as a concept has the effect of rendering suspicious in the eyes of the population (including public officials) the movement of persons across international borders.
(The image states: I (HEART) RAEDNIG – 42 million Americans are functionally illiterate. Join Jumpstart in the fight against illiteracy.)
There are many initiatives to boost people’s ability to read and write, as the right to education and attain the skills to read and write are still not being fulfilled for many people. A particularly striking campaign is underway in the United States, where jumpstart is using the famous “I love New York” icon to highlight the need to ensure that everyone has a chance to learn to read and write:
(The image states: I (HEART) NWE YROK – 22% of New Yorkers can’t read. Join Jumpstart in the fight against illiteracy.)
The NYTimes reports the sad state of persons with disabilities, particularly those with psycho-social (mental) disabilities in former Easter Europe. Regulations dating from Communist times are still enacting, leaving little to no appreciation for the (human) rights of persons with disabilities.
Meanwhile, the Disability Organizations in Britain are pushing hard for an early ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the government is holding off, citing concerns over not being fully compliant.
As the year comes to an end, some of the human rights issues that should have been tackled and were regrettably not:
E. Benjamin Skinner highlights the growth of slavery and points out that the focus on human trafficking – as pressing as this human rights violation of epic proportions is – has narrowed the issue. “The idea that all prostitutes are slaves and all slaves are prostitutes belittles the suffering of all victims.” And: “for every one woman or child enslaved in commercial sex, there are at least 15 men, women, and children enslaved in other fields such as domestic work or agricultural labor.” Read “A World Enslaved” here.
A country that will be high up on the political agenda over the next year(s), Afghanistan, has an independent human rights commission, which just published a series of caustic reports.
The crisis in Zimbabwe is going from really bad to worse. The NYTimes reports with this picture of children picking up corn that a passing truck had lost:
A helpful insider’s look on the Bombay attacks by Indian author Arundhati Roy in the Guardian:
“There is a fierce, unforgiving fault-line that runs through the contemporary discourse on terrorism. On one side (let’s call it Side A) are those who see terrorism, especially “Islamist” terrorism, as a hateful, insane scourge that spins on its own axis, in its own orbit and has nothing to do with the world around it, nothing to do with history, geography or economics.” (…) “Side B believes that though nothing can ever excuse or justify terrorism, it exists in a particular time, place and political context, and to refuse to see that will only aggravate the problem and put more and more people in harm’s way. Which is a crime in itself.”
As the Guardian reports the likelihood of children from economically marginalized backgrounds are dramatically less likely to have access to higher education in the United States. According to the cited report college tuiton has risen 439% since 1982, while median family incomes rose by 127% during that time span.
The economic down turn is not going to assist efforts to stem against this development. Chances that the next two generations will see the likes of president-elect Barack Obama receive the kind of higher education he was able to enjoy based on scholarships are less than slim.
In a rare interview, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Mohamed ElBaradei tells the LATimes he is “talking more and more about poverty, HIV-/AIDS” because the “nuclear issue is the tip of the iceberg” and world leaders need to address “broader unease about security, poverty and perceived injustice.”
The Convention on Cluster Munitions was opened for signature today. In use since World War II, cluster bombs contain a number of smaller bombs that, once spread by the wind, cover a much larger area. Cluster bombs endanger civilians much in the way that land mines do. Therefore, the early halt on their usage has both a pacifist but also a clear protection of integrity aspect to it.
The US, Russia and China, all of which are stockpiling cluster munitions were not among the first 107 countries reported to sign the Convention.
In a surprise move, the Afghan government decided to sign despite alleged pressure to the contrary from the US government.
Today, the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly adopted the Optional Protocol on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights by consenus, paving the way for its adoption on the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10th next month. The Optional Protocol, once in force, will allow individual complaints on violations of economic, social & cultural rights much in the way of the already well established Optional Protocol on Civil & Political Rights.
In a way, the adoption is yet another step toward closing the door on the Cold War. After all, the division between civil & political rights and economic, social and cultural rights respectively is largely due to the political fractions that emerged after the end of National Socialism and the Second World War, when efforts to reach agreement on a human rights treaty failed and brought about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
“Imagine being near a bomb blast but being unable to see it. Or hearing gunfire but not knowing whether the gunman is shooting at you. That is the world of the blind in Baghdad,” reports the NYTimes.
Yesterday a High-level Event was held at the UN General Assembly to assess the Millennium Development Goals. A number of people spoke, among them Bill Gates.
The Prime Minister of Great Britain, Gordon Brown stated: “I believe our greatest enemy is not war or inequality or any single ideology or a financial crisis; it is too much indifference. Indifference in the face of soul destroying poverty. Indifference in the face of catastrophic threats to our planet. A casual uncaring corrosive pass by on the other side, walk by indifference as Elie Wiesel said “to be indifferent to suffering makes the human being inhuman”.
UNESCO has themed the International Day of Literacy: “Literacy is the best remedy.”
The Austrian UNESCO Commission highlights that some 300.000 persons are illiterate in Austria. Note that it is not just children who cannot read and/or write but also a significant number of adults who were denied their full right to education in the 50ies and 60ies.
Until recently, Austria did not agree to professional research into the prevalance of illiteracy. The first such inquiry is to be conducted in 2009 as part of OECD’s Programm for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies.
Trying to refrain from commenting on the venue of the Summer Olympics 2008, it seems most fitting to use a video posted by the Guardian showcasting the efforts to get some adequate responses out of a representative of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
President Obama is holding a board that depicts Mr. Hu with his name – Hu – underneath, the shape of a person with the description “man” underneath and an arrow to the right, the bottom line reading Hu + Man + Rights. President Hu looks at the board quizzically.
