Yes, agreed, my quick list was not exhaustive, only suggestive. This is a commentary not a manifesto. I imagine the actual treaty will be an inch or so thick when done!
>
>I would also add the concept that people with disabilities have the
>right to determine the legal and institutional expression of these
>rights.
Yes agreed.
>
>Even though the slogan says `nothing about us without us',
>the rights listed do not explicitly capture this fundamental right of
>self-determination. There is the right to be free of `bodily and
>psychic integrity, including autonomy in decision-making.' But this
>statement has a passive implication. In other words, it says one has a
>right to be free of the imposition of decisions made by others. But I
>think you want a more pro-active statement here.
Self determination is autonomy in decision making. I would not worry over that one. Self determination is like a mantra in disability circles, it will be included.
>
>There are two concepts that don't quite match each other. The first is
>the right to be free of barriers, exclusion, and abuse. This is a
>passive right, namely, stop killing us, stop discrimination. The other
>right is pro-active, the right to positively determine a place in
>society as a social being and as a political entity, as an active
>member at the table of all the institutions that effectively run the
>society.
Both of the concepts are needed, however. Again, I think the drafters will cover this distinction. The right to vote was one that would fall into the "positively determine a place" mode. The right to a job would be another.
>
>There are other rights that need to be strengthen, I think. First is
>the right to be positively secured in the physical person by the
>provision of adequate food, clothing, shelter, and mobility and the
>right to self-selected and appropriate medical care. These should
>already be universal human rights, but they need to be re-stated for
>people with disabilities.
>
>It needs to be emphasized that it is the absolute duty of the
>nation-state to provide these physical and positive securities of the
>person, and to have these administered by institutions and agencies
>that are managed at least in part by disabled people themselves, and
>answerable to them.
Well now this is what the US objects to, is fearful of, will never agree to, etc., is it not? Oh the US delegates told me that in New York. They are still fighting the Cold War. I made the point that 80% of the 600 million disabled persons worldwide live in poor nations. Nondiscrimination rights are useless to them if they cannot survive in the first place. Of course I am pushing for full economic and social rights. The US will not ratify what I am pushing for. The drafters -- well, it depends on who they are -- may or may not go this far. There will be a conflict with property rights. The delegates may diminish this aspect to get something passed. It would be a shame but that is my best guess.
>
>
>In general I think you want to broaden the conceptual basis and give
>it a very high sounding elegance. The point is to make the document
>itself an empowering act of the political and social imagination and
>not just a set of legal conventions.
The North American representative is Luis Fernando Gatgens. He will be one of the drafters. He can be reached at lferag at racsa.co.cr He only speaks spanish, like I only speak english.
thanks for you input. I can pass some of this on to him if you wish or you may contact him directly. Marta
-- Marta Russell Los Angeles, CA http://www.martarussell.com/