 |
Disability
is not Inability |
:: Protection of the rights of women with disabilities
By Kathambi Kinoti, Association for Women's Rights in Development,
an international organization based in Canada (www.awid.org)
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
was adopted last august 2006. How does it address the needs of
women?
The draft United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities was adopted last month after almost four years
of negotiations. For many, an international treaty securing the
rights of the world's largest minority was long overdue.
The convention, which may come into force in 2007, departs from
the common conceptualization of disability as a medical or charity
issue and treats disability issues as human rights issues. This
is what disabled people's organizations (DPOs) have been advocating
for years.
| Not everyone, however, was in agreement that an international
convention is necessary to protect the rights of people with
disabilities. |
 |
Those against the formulation of a new convention were of the
view that disability rights were adequately catered for under
existing national and international legislation, and any additional
rights guarantees if at all necessary could be added to existing
international human rights conventions.
The U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights reportedly
said that such a global treaty was not necessary, and that countries
should emulate the US model of non-discrimination laws. [1] Marta
Russell however says that 'the recent record of the U.S. court
system, Congress and many state legislatures is one that has consistently
undermined' the rights of people with disabilities, with the 'business-friendly
Supreme Court shrink[ing] the legal definition of disability to
accommodate employers, instead of employees with disabilities.'
[2] According to Carolyn Frohmader of Women with Disabilities
Australia (WWDA), the Australian government was at first reluctant
to support a disability convention, but after intense lobbying
by WWDA xand other DPOs, their government finally lent their support
to the drafting of the convention.
In existing human rights treaties, people with disabilities are
largely unseen. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) for instance, does not
explicitly mention women with disabilities despite the fact that
they are particularly vulnerable to discrimination and abuse.
A survey conducted in 2004 in Orissa India, revealed that 'virtually
all of the women and girls with disabilities were beaten at home,
25 per cent of women with intellectual disabilities had been raped
and 6 per cent of disabled women had been forcibly sterilized.
 |
|
'[3] Frohmader says that CEDAW does not acknowledge or respond
to the rights violations suffered by women with disabilities.
The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women recognizing that women with disabilities are not
specifically addressed in CEDAW, made a recommendation that in
their reports to the Committee, states indicate the progress made
in ensuring that women with disabilities enjoy their human rights
in full. However most states'reports still fail to adequately
address the situation of women with disabilities.
The reporting mechanism under CEDAW and its Optional Protocol
has not been sufficient to serve women with disabilities, particularly
due to the fact that many countries have not signed the Optional
Protocols that allow for shadow reports by civil society organizations
and for investigations into cases of alleged rights violations.
Women's DPOs that contributed to the drafting of the Convention
were keen to ensure that a twin track approach be employed in
addressing the interests of women with disabilities;
1. The inclusion of a stand alone substantive article that recognizes
that women face aggravated discrimination due to their gender,
disability and other identities, and compels states to take all
measures necessary to ensure that they enjoy their human rights
in full. This provision was contentious from the very beginning.
Frohmader says that originally the Australian government was opposed
to the inclusion of what is now article 6 of the Convention, arguing
that the elimination of discrimination against women was already
catered for by CEDAW and therefore it would be duplication for
special attention to be paid to women under the Convention on
the Rights of People with Disabilities. WWDA says that the stand
alone article will:
Focus on the needs and particular concerns of women with
disabilities;
Provide a basis for establishing and re-orienting delivery of
services and programs to disabled women;
Identify policies and strategies which will provide a reference
point for policy development and resource allocation;
Provide clear rationale for the development of specific programs;
Develop and maintain mechanisms which increase the participation
and representation of disabled women in all decision-making;
Provide a basis for monitoring, evaluating and reporting progress.
[4] The inclusion of Article 6 of the Convention was one of the
contentious issues that were open to discussion during the final
session of the Ad Hoc Committee of the UN General Assembly that
was to finalize and adopt the treaty. Women's DPOs were therefore
happy to see it pass.
2. Mainstreaming of gender throughout the Convention was another
demand made by advocates for the rights of women with disabilities,
and its intention to do so is evident. The Convention uses 'he'
and 'she' rather than 'he' to represent 'she' as is the norm in
many legal instruments that claim that the male-centric language
includes females. Article 8 requires states to 'combat stereotypes,
prejudices and harmful practices relating to persons with disabilities,
including those based on sex and age, in all areas of life.'
Article 16, which provides for freedom against exploitation,
violence and abuse, refers to the gender-based aspects of these
violations. It however fails to recognize that women are the primary
victims. Frohmader also says that the Convention should have explicitly
addressed violations such as female genital mutilation, forced
sterilization, coercive abortion, female infanticide and honour
killing.
The Convention goes a long way in affirming the rights and dignity
of people with disabilities. The challenge will be in its implementation.
Already some states have shown reluctance to be party to the treaty.
For those who do sign it, there is no guarantee of their commitment
to implementing it. The track record of most states in honouring
their obligations under other treaties such as CEDAW indicates
that there is likely to be much work to be done by civil society,
regional bodies and the UN to ensure that the Convention is actually
implemented. Overarching all these considerations is the need
for a systemic and societal shift in attitudes towards people
with disabilities so that they are not seen as a burden or an
appendage, but as an integral part of society.
sources: disabilityworld
Story date.
Category: Community
<< Back
to Policy | Back to Disability Kenya
>>
|
