 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Article 21 - Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information
Background Documents | Article 21 Background
Seventh Session | Fifth Session | Fourth Session | Third Session
Working Group | References
Fourth Session
Governments
Non-governmental organizations
Children's Rights Alliance for EnglandInternational Disability Caucus
Landmine Survivors Network
People with Disability Australia
World Federation of the Deaf
Comments, proposals and amendments submitted electronically
Governments
CHILE
Article 13: Freedom of expression and opinion and access to information
In the heading of this article, we endorse the proposal of Liechtenstein,
which makes general references to "alternative appropriate modes of
communication", wording which covers the diversity of such modes of
communication. If specific references are to be made to some of those modes,
they could be cited as examples, since over time other diverse mechanisms
of communication could continue to be developed that would be covered by
the wording we endorse. The text would thus read:
"States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that persons
with disabilities can exercise their right to freedom of expression and
opinion through alternative appropriate modes of communication of their
choice......"
In subparagraph (b) we are of the view that the verb should be emphatic
in the proposal being advanced, in which case the word "accepting"
should be replaced by the word "incorporating", whose meaning
is more binding and denotes a requirement. Therefore, the text would begin
as follows:
(b) "Incorporating the use of alternative modes of communication by
persons with disabilities in official interactions".
In subparagraph (c), we endorse the proposal of various States (New Zealand,
Trinidad and Tobago, Lebanon, Jordan, Costa Rica and Yemen) to incorporate
the idea of providing education or training to non-disabled persons in the
use of alternative communication modes in their interactions with people
with disabilities.
In subparagraph (f), we endorse Jordan's proposal to replace the word "encouraging"
with the word "requiring", since we are referring to private entities
that provide services to the public, and not to just any entities. We also
endorse Trinidad and Tobago's proposal that public entities by covered by
this requirement in order to be consistent. In other words, if private entities
are required to comply, the public sector should equally be compelled to
do so. Therefore, the subparagraph would read thus:
(f) "Requiring private and public entities that provide services to
the general public to provide information and services in accessible and
usable formats....."
In subparagraph (g), we endorse Jordan's proposal to replace the word "encouraging"
with the word "requiring", since access to services provided by
the mass media is of vital importance to the development of people in contemporary
societies. Therefore, the text would read as follows:
(g) "Requiring the mass media to make their services accessible to
persons with disabilities"
EUROPEAN UNION
Draft Article 13
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND OPINION, AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION
States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that persons with
disabilities can exercise their right to freedom of expression and opinion
through Braille, sign language, and other modes of communication of their
choice, and to seek, receive and impart information, on an equal footing
with others, including by:
(a) providing public information to persons with disabilities, on request,
in a timely manner and without additional cost, in accessible formats48
and technologies of their choice, taking into account different kinds of
disability;
EU Proposal: The EU suggests replacing "public" with "official"
and deleting the words “of their choice”.
(b) accepting the use of alternative modes of communication by persons with
disabilities in official interactions;
(c) educating persons with disabilities to use alternative and augmentative
communication modes;
(d) undertaking and promoting the research, development and production of
new technologies, including information and communication technologies,
and assistive technologies, suitable for persons with disabilities;
EU Proposal: The EU suggests the following rewording; “promoting and where
appropriate undertaking the research, development and production of new
technologies, including information and communication technologies, and
assistive technologies, suitable for persons with disabilities;”
(e) promoting other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons
with disabilities to ensure their access to information;
(f) encouraging50 private entities that provide services to the general
public to provide information and services in accessible and usable formats
for persons with disabilities;
(g) encouraging the mass media to make their services accessible to persons
with disabilities.
JAPAN
Art.13(a)
-As retained in the parentheses on the draft text, we propose to use "Taking
a ppropriate steps to provide..." at the beginning of this subparagraph
in order to take into account the fact that immediate and complete implementation
of a ll these measures are not always possible for every state party. In
this rega rd, instead of using above wording, it is also possible to put
the wording "pr ovide...to the maximum of its available resources"
as used in the Article 2 of the International Covenant of Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights.
Art.13(f)&(g)
- As these subparagraphs dealing with private sector, we prefer to use "Encour
aging" as in the original draft, rather than "Obliging" or
"Ensuring."
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Article 13: Freedom of Expression and Opinion, and Access to Information
• Proposes inclusion of a new para before para (a): “providing equal access
to information regarding electoral processes so as to ensure that persons
with disabilities can exercise their political rights on an equal basis
with others”
• Para (b): proposes replacement of “Accepting” with “Recognizing”
• Para (d): proposes addition at the end of para: “in consultation with
and with the active involvement of persons with disabilities”
MEXICO
Article 13
State Parties undertake to ensure the enjoyment of the right to information,
of expression and opinion, as well as of communication of persons with disabilities,
through modes of communication of their choice, including Braille and sign
language, to allow persons with disabilities to seek, receive and impart
information on conditions of equality, including by:
(c) Providing education and training to non disable persons wishing to communicate
with persons with disabilities, their families and the general public, to
use alternative communication modes.
Non-governmental organizations
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS ALLIANCE FOR ENGLAND
Article 13
Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information
States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that persons with
disabilities can exercise their right to freedom of expression and opinion
through Braille, sign language and other modes of communication of their
choice, and to seek, receive and impart information, on an equal footing
with others, including by:
(a) Providing public information to persons with disabilities, on request,
in a timely manner and without additional cost, in accessible formats and
technologies of their choice, taking into account different kinds of disability;
(b) Accepting the use of alternative modes of communication by persons with
disabilities in official interactions;
(c) Educating persons with disabilities to use alternative and augmentative
communication modes;
(d) Undertaking and promoting the research, development and production of
new technologies, including information and communication technologies,
and assistive technologies, suitable for persons with disabilities;
(e) Promoting other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons
with disabilities to ensure their access to information;
(f) Encouraging private entities that provide services to the general public
to provide information and services in accessible and usable formats for
persons with disabilities;
(g) Encouraging the mass media to make their services accessible to persons
with disabilities.
States Parties shall undertake to provide such assistance as is necessary
to support infants’ and children’s self-expression and communication.
Where communication assistance is provided to an infant or child with disabilities,
it shall belong to them and not be restricted to an educational function
or setting, or be seen as a form of medical or other treatment.
State Parties shall ensure the provision of advice, training and support
to parents and to all those working with children with disabilities, to
help them respect and support the child’s self-expression and communication.
INTERNATIONAL DISABILITY CAUCUS
Draft Article 13: Freedom of thought, expression and opinion
1. States parties shall take appropriate actions to ensure that:
a) all persons with disabilities enjoy the same freedom of expression, thoughts
and opinion as that enjoyed by others;
b) persons with disabilities can exercise their right to freedom of expression,
thoughts and opinion through languages, scripts, modes, means and formats
of communication of their choice, including but not limited to sign languages,
tactile communication techniques, captioning, plain and easy understood
texts, large print and Braille, in order to seek, receive and impart information
on the basis of equality with others;
2. States parties shall take actions to:
a) accept and promote the use of a variety of languages and modes and means
of communication by persons with disabilities in official interactions in
order to seek, receive, impart and access information and enable persons
with disabilities to communicate on an equal basis as others;
b) provide training of assistants, intermediaries, interpreters, including
sign language and tactile communication interpreters, note takers and readers
to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to information and
the facility to communicate;
c) officially recognise national sign languages in legislation to guarantee
linguistic rights for all Deaf persons, and to ensure communication with
their families,
immediate community and the general public;.
3. States parties shall protect the freedom of thought of persons with disabilities,
including:
a) the freedom of choice whether to consider oneself a person with a disability;
b) the freedom to adopt and hold opinions and beliefs about the experience
of disability;
c) the freedom to choose practices of support for well-being, based on personal
thoughts, opinions and beliefs;
d) the freedom from coercion that interferes with the capacity to freely
produce or sustain thought.
LANDMINE SURVIVORS NETOWRK
Draft Article 13 - FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND OPINION, AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION
SYNTHESIS OF PROPOSALS
States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that persons with
disabilities have the right to hold opinions without interference and the
right to freedom of expression and opinion on a basis of equality with others,
receiving and imparting information and ideas of all kinds through a variety
of accessible media and means of communication of their choice, including
by:
(a) accepting and promoting the use of a variety of accessible media and
means of communication by persons with disabilities in official interactions;
(b) educating persons with disabilities to use a variety of accessible media
and means of communication and providing opportunities for their families,
care-givers and members of the general public to be educated in a variety
of accessible media and means of communication;
(c) promoting and, where appropriate, undertaking the research, development
and production of new accessible and affordable technologies, including
information and communication technologies, and assistive technologies,
in partnership with persons with disabilities;
(d) promoting other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons
with disabilities, including expanding the necessary level of expertise
to assist persons with disabilities, to ensure their right to freedom of
expression and access to information;
(e) providing official information to persons with disabilities, in a timely
manner and without additional cost, in accessible formats and technologies
of their choice, taking into account different kinds of disabilities;
(f) requiring private entities that provide services to the general public
to provide information and services in accessible and usable formats for
persons with disabilities; and
(g) requiring the mass media to make their information and services accessible
to persons with disabilities.
COMMENTS
The rights to freedom of expression and opinion, and the attendant rights
to seek and impart information are of critical importance for people with
disabilities, because without enjoyment of these rights people with disabilities
are deprived of the opportunity to fully participate in decision-making
and other expressions of autonomy, as well as the ability to interact with
and be fully inclusive members of society. As noted by a number of Ad Hoc
Committee members, Draft Article 13 of the Working Group Draft Text seemed
to focus on issues of access to information and less on the other related
aspects of the right. Rather than changing the title or chapeau to reflect
this focus, the language suggested here attempts to better incorporate the
other aspects of the right.
The chapeau of Draft Article 13 has been altered to incorporate aspects
of Article 19 of the ICCPR, which references elements of freedom of expression
not originally included in Draft Article 13. For example, the chapeau now
includes the concept of “holding opinions without interference,” which is
particularly important given the coercive practices often used against people
with disabilities. (Cf. ICCPR, Article 19(1)) The concept of “receiving
and imparting information and ideas of all kinds” has also been included,
to emphasize that there are no limits on the areas, and types of ideas and
information included in the scope of the article. (Cf. ICCPR, Article 19(2))
Given concerns about the use of terms such as “modes of communication” (felt
by some not to be inclusive of languages, such as sign language), and questions
about what, if anything, should be included in a listing of examples, the
chapeau now references “through a variety of accessible media and means
of communication.” It was suggested (WFDB) that “means of communication”
would be broader than “modes of communication” and thus that term has been
substituted. In addition, the term “media” has also been incorporated, as
this is the term used in other conventions to indicate the broad range of
forms of communication guaranteed by the right.
(Cf. ICCPR, Article 19(2); CRC, Article 13(1)) Although some States (EU,
New Zealand) questioned the inclusion of the term “of their choice,” this
has been retained because failure to do so would constitute a departure
from existing human rights law. (Cf. ICCPR, Article 19(2); CRC, Article
13(1)) Lastly, the potentially insensitive term “on an equal footing with
others” has been replaced with “on a basis of equality with others.” (Canada)
The sub-paragraphs of Draft Article 13 have been re-ordered so those dealing
with aspects of expression and those addressing aspects of access to information
are grouped together. Draft Article 13(a) (formerly (b)) now no longer includes
the term “alternative” communication, as it was felt by some (New Zealand)
to have a pejorative connotation. Consistent with both the proposal (New
Zealand) and the new wording found in the chapeau, “alternative” has been
replaced with “a variety of accessible media and means of communication.”
The provision also includes the stronger concept of “promoting” as well
as accepting the use of such media and means of communication. (Mexico)
Draft Article 13(b) (formerly (c)) originally addressed only the education
of people with disabilities in accessible media and means of communication,
but a number of States (Yemen, Lebanon, Trinidad and Tobago, Morocco, Kenya,
Bahrain, Costa Rica) supported the broadening of the article to ensure that
others (such as family members, care-givers and members of the public) also
receive the same opportunities.
Draft Article 13(c) (formerly (d)) reflects the proposal to undertake research
and development “where appropriate,” in order to prevent duplication of
efforts or undue burden for countries not in a position to implement such
an obligation. (EU, New Zealand) The requirements that any technologies
developed be both “accessible” (Thailand) and “affordable” (Philippines)
have also been included. Lastly, “suitable for persons with disabilities”
has been replaced with the concept of development of the technologies in
collaboration with people with disabilities (Canada), utilizing the term
“partnership” (suggested by New Zealand in other parts of the Convention).
Draft Article 13(d) (formerly (e)) did not, in the opinion of some States,
adequately address the need to train and increase the availability of those
providing assistance and support to people with disabilities in this area,
such as interpreters. (Costa Rica, Korea, Uganda, South Africa) Rather than
providing a specific list of forms of assistance that might not be relevant
across cultures or remain current over time in light of changing technologies,
the amendment here includes the broader proposal referencing the need to
“increase the level of expertise to assist persons with disabilities.” (Korea)
The provision has also been amended to include a reference to freedom of
expression as well as access to information, because in many instances those
providing assistance (such as sign language interpreters) play a crucial
role in assisting the individuals in expressing themselves as well as gain
access to information.
Draft Article 13(e) (formerly (a)), (f) and (g), pertain more strongly to
access to information, and therefore have been grouped together. In Draft
Article 13(a) the term “public” has been changed to “official,” as this
was felt by some members (EU, Mexico) to be the more appropriate term. The
reference to materials being available “on request” has been removed, as
there was concern that this might lead to people with disabilities having
to make formal requests for information in advance, thus delaying their
access to the information. (Namibia, Thailand, Kuwait)
Given the powerful role of the media and the pervasiveness of private entities
that provide goods and services to the general public, Draft Article 13(f)
and (g) have been amended to remove the relatively weak term “encouraging,”
and replaced with the stronger term “requiring.” (Yemen, Namibia, Thailand,
Uganda, Jordan, Kenya) Draft Article 13(g) has also been amended to include
the term “information,” so that it is consistent with the other provisions.
PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITY AUSTRALIA
Article 12
Freedom from violence and abuse
Issue 1 after the words “… are at greater risk, both within and outside
the home, of violence, injury or abuse neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment
or exploitation, including” to add: “emotional abuse …”
Issue 4, after “are effectively monitored by independent authorities” to
add “as well as state and civil society organizations’ representatives”
WORLD
FEDERATION OF THE DEAF
Draft Article 13: Right of freedom of thought, freedom of expression
and opinion, access to information and communication
1. c) persons with disabilities can exercise their right to freedom of expression,
thoughts and opinion through languages, modes and means of communication
of their choice, including sign languages, tactile communication techniques,
plain and easy understood texts, large print and Braille, in order to seek,
receive and impart information on the basis of equality with others.
2. b) provide public and official information to persons with disabilities
in a timely manner and without additional cost to persons with disabilities
in appropriate and accessible formats and languages;
c) accept and promote the use of a variety of modes and means of communication
and languages by persons with disabilities in official interactions;
d) provide education and learning programmes aimed at teaching persons with
disabilities, their families and the general public to use a variety of
augmentative and communication modes and means, sign languages, tactile
communication techniques, Braille and other communication techniques;
……………………………..
i) provide training of assistants, intermediaries, interpreters, including
sign language and tactile communication interpreters, note takers and readers
to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to information and
the facility to communicate;
j) ensure that private entities, including mass media and other agencies
providing services to the general public also provide information, entertainment
and other services in accessible and usable formats and languages for persons
with disabilities of all ages;
k) recognise national sign languages in legislation and make them available
for all deaf persons, their families, teachers and the general public;
WFD Response to Government Proposals on Article 13:
The World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) has provided delegates to the 4th
Ad Hoc Committee (AHC) meeting with comments on Article 13. WFD has not
yet, however, responded to the proposal for this Article from the 3rd AHC
meeting. WFD would like to take this opportunity to do so, and also to respond
to proposals put forward at the 4th AHC meeting.
WFD is of the opinion that delegates at the 3rd AHC meeting did not adequately
consider proposals by the Working Group in relation to Article 13. National
sign languages are not referred to as the natural languages of Deaf people
in the Convention. (Please see the Working Group draft, Article 13, Footnote
40.) The recognition of national sign languages as the natural languages
of Deaf people is an essential prerequisite to the right to freedom of thought,
and freedom of expression and opinion.
In document A7AC.265/2004/5 from the 3rd AHC meeting, WFD notes that Uganda
proposed “13(h) Developing a national sign language.” WFD proposes that
the world ‘Developing’ be replaced with ‘Recognising and promoting’.
In response to oral proposals at the 4th AHC meeting, which were not yet
available in written format at the time of writing this response, WFD offers
the following comments:
• Venezuela proposed that ‘sign language’ be added before ‘interpreters’
in 13.1.e. WFD agrees with this proposal.
• Thailand amended Uganda’s proposal of ‘Developing a national sign language’
to ‘Recognising a national sign language’. WFD agrees in principle with
this amendment, but with the addition of ‘and promoting’ as above.
• New Zealand proposed complete replacement of their proposal at the 3rd
AHC in regards to 13.1.a, b and c. WFD supports this replacement. New Zealand’s
proposal includes recognition of sign languages, stating that sign languages
are not a ‘means of communication’ but real languages. WFD agrees, and emphasises
that the concept of language and the concept of means of communication are
two different things, thus must be clearly separate in this Article and
all other Articles in the Convention. WFD fully supports Deaf people’s right
to use sign language as their first language, as proposed by New Zealand.
• Kenya supported New Zealand’s proposal that sign language and means of
communication must be separate. WFD also notes that Kenya proposed the amendment
of Uganda’s proposal of ‘Developing a national sign language’ to ‘Promoting
a national sign language’.
• Norway stated that sign languages must be recognised as the first language
of Deaf people. WFD supports this.
• Eritrea also supported the recognition of sign language.
• Namibia supported the general gist of Uganda’s proposal of ‘Developing
a national sign language’, but amended it to ‘Recognise and promote a national
sign language’. This is in line with WFD’s own suggestion.
• Thailand expressed support for New Zealand’s proposal that sign language
and means of communication must be separate; and also suggested that ‘means
of communication’ is a more appropriate phrase than ‘modes of communication’.
WFD agrees with this. Thailand also emphasised strongly that sign languages
are real languages, and must be recognised as such in the Convention.
• Trinidad and Tobago emphasised the importance of recognising sign languages
as Deaf people’s first language, and agreed with Thailand’s proposal to
amend ‘Developing a national sign language’ to ‘Recognising a national sign
language’.
• Costa Rica expressed support for New Zealand’s proposal, and also emphasised
that sign languages are languages, not a ‘means of communication’, and must
be treated as such.
WFD believes the above proposals are mostly in line with existing UN human
rights conventions (in particular, see ICESCR Part II, Article 2.2 and ICCPR,
Part II, Article 2.1). These proposals, along with the work being done by
the International Disability Caucus, provide a good basis from which to
further develop Article 13 to ensure the right of Deaf people to freedom
of thought, and freedom of expression and opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: For clarity, WFD offers the following definitions.
Language is the systematic use of sounds, signs or written symbols to represent
things, actions, ideas and states, shared and understood by members of a
linguistic community. Following this definition, linguists consider sign
language a natural language.
Communication is the process of exchanging information, usually via a common
system of symbols such as but not limited to language. Humans communicate
in order to share knowledge and experiences.
Means of communication is not synonymous with ‘communication’. It refers
to forms of human communication which include speaking, signing, writing
and gesturing. Other examples of means of communication are Braille, tactile
communication methods used by deafblind people and augmentative communication
methods (eg. Bliss).