Right to Family Challenged for Persons with Disabilities

The ability to make decisions about marriage and family formation is a fundamental human right, and yet, when it comes to persons with disabilities, we see this principle challenged all the time.  Three recent news articles from the United States, Australia, and Canada highlight the issue that many governments continue to challenge the rights of persons with disabilities to be partners and parents.

Article 23 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) mandates that States Parties implement strong legal protections to prevent discrimination and ensure that persons with disabilities have the right “to marry and to found a family.”  Nevertheless, the three articles discussed here demonstrate how, even in developed countries, governments continue to impinge on the rights of persons with disabilities to form families.  Both Canada and Australia have ratified the CRPD, making the principles in the treaty legally binding.  The United States is only a signatory to the Convention, but, as such, it should aim in good faith not to violate the principles of the treaty.

The first article  from New York State discusses the barrier one American couple is facing, which hinders their right to family.  The engaged couple—Paul Forziano and Hava Samuels—two persons with developmental disabilities, currently live in separate group homes that allow them to receive some support while living within the community.  The couple hopes to move in together after they are married, but so far, both homes have refused to allow them to live together.  As a result, Forziano and Samuels are filing a suit in the state of New York with the goal of protecting their right to live as a couple in the environment of their choice.  If the suit is successful, this case could be an important step forward in recognizing the rights of couples with disabilities in the United States.

The second article from Australia demonstrates how forced sterilisation continues to deny women with disabilities the rights to bodily integrity and family.  While the parents of the little girl featured in the article refused to allow their daughter to be sterilsed due to her disability, many other women and girls around the world are subject to this practice without their consent.  Forced sterilisation of persons with disabilities is currently under Senate inquiry in Australia and, alarmingly, one poll showed that two-thirds of Australians would support the sterilisation of persons with disabilities.  Forced sterilisation of women with disabilities represents a clear violation of a host of human rights, including, the right to family, non-discrimination, self-determination, physical and mental integrity, among other human rights.  

In a third article, parents with Cerebral Palsy in Canada were only able to maintain custody of their child after winning a lengthy legal battle against the State.  To keep their baby boy, the parents had to prove that they could successfully and safely care for their child.  Although there are instances when persons with disabilities, like all other segments of society, are not able to care for a child, taking children away from parents with disabilities should never be an automatic response.  For many people, having a family brings incredible happiness and fulfillment. Denying a person the right to a family based on disability amounts to state-sponsored discrimination and violates human rights principles.  

There are a number of issues with the way States handle the right to family for persons with disabilities.  One problem is that persons with disabilities are often treated like children, incapable of taking care of themselves or others.  Often countries deny persons with disabilities the right to family based on the assumption that persons with disabilities will not be able to provide for the child’s ‘welfare’ or ‘best interest.’  Many people falsely assume that the disability will automatically be passed on to children of persons with disabilities; even if this were true, all people have the human right to found a family if they so choose.  To better address these issues, governments must look at each case individually, while respecting the human rights of persons with disabilities. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, all children deserve a loving home, and disability does not limit a person’s capacity to love.

To learn more about the Right to Privacy, Integrity, Home, and the Family see Chapter 7 of Human Rights. YES! Action and Advocacy on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/hreduseries/HR-YES/chap-7.html.

 

Examining the Connections between Poverty and Disability:

All too often, in developed and developing countries, persons with disabilities live in poverty.  In many places, people make derogatory assumptions about persons with disabilities, presuming that laziness is the cause of their poverty. Blaming persons with disabilities for their economic condition, however, perpetuates negative stereotypes, overlooks discrimination, and fails to address real barriers to accessibility and full integration within society.

Ongoing debates in the United Kingdom and the United States highlight negative perceptions of persons with disabilities in the public realm.   National Public Radio (NPR) recently ran a six-part series on the increasing number of Americans receiving disability benefits, entitled: “Unfit for work: the startling rise of disability in America.”  Further, in spite of legitimate concerns voiced by advocates and persons with disabilities, massive social benefit cuts have taken effect in the UK.  The cuts will likely do the most harm to persons with disabilities and other disadvantaged sectors of the population.  Certainly, in these tough economic times, the bottom line is a serious consideration for all politicians.  However, the negative rhetoric that portrays persons with disabilities as freeloaders living off of the state’s bankrolls demonstrates not only insensitivity but also a lack of understanding of the relationship between poverty and disability.

In developing countries, persons with disabilities are sometimes faulted for adopting economic survival tactics such as street begging.  An article from Rwanda, for example, describes a plan “designed to sensitise disabled beggars to shun the deplorable habit.”  The underlying suggestion is that persons with disabilities choose not to work or are somehow lazier than other people.

The first step to actually addressing the needs of persons with disabilities is to understand the real links between poverty and disability.  As the World Bank explains, persons with disabilities are overrepresented among the world’s poorest populations, and yet the international development industry has often failed to integrate persons with disabilities into development programming.  Poverty is a common outcome when people are denied equal educational opportunities, face discrimination in hiring practices as well as significant accessibility barriers in the employment realm.  It is thus critical to address these root causes of unemployment or underemployment among persons with disabilities and not to presume laziness or a sense of entitlement.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) recognizes the Right to Work as a critical human right of all persons with disabilities.  Countries can begin to take a step toward economic inclusion and poverty reduction by examining their policies related to disability and employment.  While it is critical to combat discrimination with laws on the books, policies that provide incentives for government and private sector employers to hire persons with disabilities can have a positive impact in advancing implementation of such laws.  Governments and civil society organizations can reduce poverty by striving to make education inclusive of children with disabilities and by providing job skills training to youth and adults with disabilities.  Lastly, governments must take accessibility seriously, as lack of accessibility remains a fundamental barrier to full participation for many persons with disabilities in both developed and developing countries.  Rather than blaming and cutting benefits for persons with disabilities, let’s work toward creating societies that are truly inclusive of all people.

To learn more about the Right to Work, please refer to Human Rights. YES! Chapter 10, which discusses this subject in detail: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/hreduseries/HR-YES/chap-10.html

Forced Displacement of Persons with Disabilities

International law recognizes refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) as populations that are particularly vulnerable to human rights abuses, persecution and violence.  Refugees with disabilities, however, face additional threats in conflict and humanitarian settings.  It is often more difficult for persons with disabilities to flee dangerous environments due to mobility issues, which means many people are left behind and must remain in conflict affected regions.  Persons with disabilities may also be specifically targeted for human rights violations, either within conflict settings or during flight.  Lastly, conflict situations tend to increase the number of persons with primary or secondary disabilities as a result of landmines, torture, violence and psychological trauma, increasing the need for humanitarian assistance.

Refugees and IDPs with disabilities who do manage to reach refugee camps often face barriers to accessing life-saving services and critical assistance programmes.  Although there is significant need among refugees with disabilities for health (both psychosocial and physical), education, employment, and access to justice services, too often such services remain out of reach for persons with disabilities.  If humanitarian programmes are not inclusive of refugees with disabilities, they are failing one of the most marginalized and vulnerable populations.

Humanitarian programming can be inaccessible in a variety of ways.  First, persons with disabilities may not be able to physically access food distribution, health or education services.  Relatedly, information and outreach efforts may not be accessible or targeted toward refugees with disabilities.  For example, refugee children with disabilities are denied the right to education when schools in refugee centres are inaccessible, do not provide accommodations, and/or do not actively seek to include children with disabilities. Part of the problem is that many humanitarian initiatives are not designed with refugees with disabilities in mind.  Without planning for disability inclusion in every stage of programme implementation, refugees with disabilities will not be able to fully benefit from life-saving services. 

Some humanitarian and international organizations are starting to address these shortcomings in refugee assistance.  Including refugees with disabilities and disabled people’s organizations in programme design and implementation can be an effective way of ensuring that programmes meet the needs of all refugees. While disability mainstreaming in humanitarian assistance is a worthy goal, disability-focused interventions can help to address immediate needs of women, men and children refugees with disabilities in a more targeted way.  Thus humanitarian organizations should aim to both mainstream disability into all programming and policies and provide direct assistance to refugees with disabilities. Lastly, training can help to raise awareness among humanitarian agencies and staff on how to make humanitarian work truly inclusive of persons with disabilities.  By integrating disability into humanitarian efforts, humanitarian organizations can better protect human rights, maximize benefits and expand reach to the most vulnerable populations.

To read more about One Billion Strong’s work with refugees in Uganda, please visit our website: http://www.one-billion-strong.org/site/315/What-We-Do/Refugees-and-Internally-Displaced-Persons/Refugee-Projects

Refugee children with disabilities in Uganda receiving support through UNHCR/One Billion Strong Program

Gateways to Inclusion: Airport Accessibility and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Airports are gateways to the world.  When airports and airlines are inaccessible to persons with disabilities they violate not only the right to accessibility[1] but also a host of other interrelated human rights.  People travel via air transport for a number of reasons, including: to attend a work related conference, to study abroad, to participate in a sporting event, to support a cause, to receive healthcare, or to enjoy a vacation.  The below diagram shows just some of the ways that the accessibility (or inaccessibility) of airports can impact other human rights as laid out in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Airports and airlines can be inaccessible to persons with disabilities in a number of ways: through failure to provide reasonable accommodation,[2] discriminatory policies, poorly trained staff, and inaccessible infrastructure, and/or signage to name a few of the access issues that persons with disabilities encounter. In some instances, persons with disabilities are not allowed to board flights without a personal assistant, as a recent case with Scoot Airlines showed.  Another article reports that a woman with a disability was left stranded for two days in the Stansted Airport due to complete mismanagement by airport personnel tasked with assisting her. Persons who use wheelchairs often face challenges with lost or damaged wheelchairs, which not only impacts their immediate mobility but also can have financial repercussions if people are not fully reimbursed for their wheelchair cost.

Fortunately, there have been some signs of reform and efforts to improve airport accessibility for persons with disabilities.  The more persons with disabilities who bring discrimination cases against airlines and publicly demand their rights, the more people who will be encouraged to do so in the future.  Easy Jet was recently found guilty of discriminating against three passengers with disabilities and fined over €70,000, providing a significant incentive for the airline to take accessibility seriously and sending a message to other carriers.

The Paralympics can be another hugely important factor for pushing countries to improve their airport accessibility.  London made substantial accessibility improvements to the Heathrow airport in the years and months leading up to the 2012 London Paralympics.  Future Paralympic games in Russia and Brazil will undoubtedly result in enhancements to airport accessibility in Sochi and Rio de Janeiro. In developing and middle income countries where infrastructure is not as advanced, such improvements make an even greater impact in the daily lives of persons with disabilities.

Accessibility is one of the most important disability rights issues, as it represents integration and full enjoyment of a range of other human rights.  It is time that airlines and airports be held to account for making air travel accessible, no more excuses.

---

[1] See Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 9: http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convention_accessible_pdf.pdf.

[2] Reasonable Accommodation is “a process through which necessary and appropriate modifications, adjustments, or provisions are made, in order to accommodate the accessibility needs in a particular case.” For more on reasonable accommodation, see the Human Rights. YES! chapter on Accessibility: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/hreduseries/HR-YES/chap-2.html.