 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Background Documents | Article 9 Background
Seventh Session | Sixth
Session | Fourth Session | Third
Session
Working Group | References
Governments
UN System organizations
National Human Rights Institutions
Non-governmental organizations
Bizchut
European Disability ForumIndian NGO Consultative Meeting
International Save the Children AlliancePhysical Disability Council of Australia Ltd
Comments, proposals and amendments submitted electronically
Governments
Article 19 on Accessibility
Inputs of the African Group on Article 19 on Accessibility as indicated
during the introduction of the article in the Plenary.
New amendments in bold:
State Parties are requested to take progressive appropriate measures to
identify and eliminate barriers and to ensure accessibility for persons
with disabilities to built environment
1. States parties to this Convention shall take progressive (appropriate-delete)
measures to identify and eliminate obstacles and barriers, and to ensure
accessibility for persons with disabilities to the built environment, to
transportation, to information and communications, including information
and communications technologies, and (to services-delete), in order to ensure
the capacity of persons fully in all aspects of life. The focus of these
measures shall include inter alia;
(a) The construction and renovation of (public-delete) buildings intended
for use by the public, roads and other facilities for public use, including
schools, housing, medical facilities, indoor and out-door facilities and
(publicly owned-delete) workplaces;
(b) Promoting universal design for mobility aids, devices and assistive
yechnologies and encouraging private entities which produce these to take
into account all aspects of mobility for persons with disabilities;
(c) The developing and remodelling of public transportation facilities,
communications and (other-delete) services, including electronic services.
2. States Parties shall also take appropriate measures to:
(a) Ensure provision in buildings and facilities for public use, audio,
signage including in Braille and easy-to-read-and-understand forms;
(b) Ensure the provision of other forms of personal and assistive services
abd intermediaries, including guides, readers and sign language interpreters
to facilitate accessibility to buildings and facilities for public use;
(c) Develop, promulgate and monitor implementation of minimum national standards
and guidelines for the accessibility of public facilities and services intended
for use by the public;
(c) bis Facilitating access by persons with disabilities to mobility aids,
devices, assistive technologies and forms of live assistance and intermediaries
including by making them available at affordable cost;
(d) Ensure private entities that provide public facilties and services to
take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities;
undertaking and promoting research, development and production of new mobility
aids, devices and assistive technologies;
(e) Ensure organisations of persons with disabilities are consulted and
fully involved from conception when standards and guidelines for accessibility
are being developed;
(f) Provide training for all stakeholders including professionals involved
in designing structures on accessibility issues for persons with disabilities.
AUSTRALIA
Article 19 – proposed changes by Australia
1. States Parties to this Convention shall take appropriate [and progressive
– Australia] measures to [remove barriers in all areas including the built
environment, goods, services (including transportation, information and
communications), facilities, information technology, electronic commerce
(including banking), equipment, aids and appliances – Australia] in order
to ensure the capacity of persons with disabilities to live independently
and participate fully in all areas of life. (The focus of these measures
shall include, inter alia: – Australia)
Delete sub-paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b)
2. States Parties shall also take appropriate [and progressive – Australia]
to [, inter alia –Australia]:
Article 23: Social Security and an adequate standard of living
Para 1 after the words “social security” delete the words “including social
insurance” and insert the words “ and social insurance (including disability
specific services)”
After the words “and shall take” delete the word appropriate” and insert
the word “progressive”:
Sub-paragraph a – no change
Sub-paragraph b – no change
Sub-paragraph c – no change
Sub-paragraph d – delete the words after “housing programs”
Sub-paragraph e – no change
Sub-paragraph f – at the end of this sub-para, insert the words “and in
accordance with national law”
New sub-paragraph g – eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability
from social security and social assistance provided to the population generally,
and from the administration of disability specific services for people with
disabilities.
2. No change
CANADA
Article 19
Accessibility
(States Parties to this Convention shall take all appropriate measures to
identify and eliminate existing barriers, to prevent the creation of new
barriers, and to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities in order
to enhance their capacity to live independently and to participate fully
in all aspects of life - Canada):
CHILE
ARTICLE 19 – Accessibility
Paragraph 1 should be modified as follows:
“States Parties to this Convention will adopt the appropriate measures to
identify and eliminate obstacles and to ensure that persons with disabilities
have access to built spaces, to transport in its diverse forms (land, air
and maritime), to the culture, to information and communications, taking
into account the right of persons with disabilities to accessible technologies,
in particular to the technologies of information and communications and
other services, in order to ensure…..”
Letter (a) should be modified as follows:
(a) The construction and renovation of public buildings, roads and other
facilities for public use, such as schools, housing, medical facilities,
indoor and outdoor facilities, publicly owned work places and privately
owned work places. (Note: The question of employment is a country matter
and for this reason, it is desirable to have an open labor facility for
all without exclusion. From this stems the importance that places of private
employment can envisage such accessibility. Majority of these are profitable
companies, which should invest in such accessibility measures, by virtue
of the principle of social responsibility of these companies).
Letter (b) under paragraph 2 should be modified as follows:
(b) Provide other forms of help through personal assistance, facilitators
and intermediaries, such as guides, readers and sign language interpreters,
to facilitate accessibility to buildings and public services.
It is proposed the following phrase be added to letter (c):
(c ) This decree include buildings and private installations which render
public services or which cater to the public.
Letter (d) should be modified as follows:
(d) Encourage private entities in general (which do not render public services
or cater to the public) to take into account all those aspects of accessibility
for persons with disabilities.
Add the following words “conception, principles and implementation” to letter
(f) as follows:
(f) Promote the conception, principles and implementation of universal design
and international cooperation in the development of standards, guidelines
and assistive technologies.
Add a letter (i) as follows:
(i) Incorporate in the study programmes of those being educated at all levels,
the theme of accessibility.
OBSERVATIONS
- The above letter is added to urge the interest of all society, not only
of those actually interested (such as those mentioned in letter (h). While
the Convention definitely envisions changes at the present time, work has
to be done to make these transformations more far-reaching for the coming
generations. Accessibility is a core issue in the inclusive development
of countries.
- It is proposed that Article 4 on General Obligations should include a
letter referring to: “Incorporate in the study programmes to all being educated,
in all levels, the theme of disability. This would allow the withdrawal
of letter (h) in Article 19, placing a broader formulation that would also
withdraw the preceding proposal on letter (i).
Advantage: It would shorter Article 19 and broaden the spectrum through
Article 4.
EUROPEAN UNION
Draft Article 19
ACCESSIBILITY
EU Proposal: move up before Article 8, after former Article 18.
1. States Parties to this Convention shall take appropriate measures to
identify and eliminate obstacles, and to ensure accessibility for persons
with disabilities to the built environment, to transportation, to information
and communications, including information and communications technologies,
and to other services, in order to ensure the capacity of persons with disabilities
to live independently and to participate fully in all aspects of life. The
focus of these measures shall include, inter alia:
EU Proposal: Reword as follows: “States Parties to this Convention shall
take appropriate measures to identify and eliminate obstacles to accessibility,
including inter alia architectural, sensorial and cultural barriers, and
promote equal access to information and means of communication”.
a. the construction and renovation of public buildings, roads and other
facilities for public use, including schools, housing, medical facilities,
in door and out-door facilities to which the public generally have access,
and publicly owned workplaces,
b. the development and remodelling of public transportation facilities,
communications and other services, including electronic services,
EU Proposal: EU suggests deletion of (a) and (b)
2. States Parties shall also take appropriate measures to:
EU Proposal: EU suggests the following rewording:“These measures
shall include”
(a) provide in public buildings and facilities signage in Braille and easy
to read and understand forms;
EU Proposal: EU suggests the deletion of (a)
(b) provide other forms of live assistance and intermediaries, guides, readers
and sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to public buildings
and facilities,
EU Proposal: EU suggests the deletion and move to Article 15(2)
and reword
(c) develop, promulgate and monitor implementation of minimum national standards
and guidelines for the accessibility of public facilities and services;
EU Proposal: EU suggests rewording as follows: “developing, promulgating
and monitoring implementation of minimum national standards and guidelines
for the accessibility of public facilities and services in consultation
with organisations of persons with disabilities;”
(d) encourage private entities that provide public facilities and services
to take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities;
(e) undertake and promote research, development and production of new assistive
technologies, giving priority to affordably priced technologies;
EU Proposal: Insert “and universal design” after “assistive technologies”.
EU Proposal: Insert new paragraph e bis.: “promoting the development, availability
and use of universally designed goods, services, equipment and facilities,
which are accessible and understandable to, as well as usable by, everyone,
to the greatest extent in the most independent and natural manner possible,
without the need for adaptation or specialised design solutions”.
(f) promote universal design and international cooperation in the development
of standards, guidelines and assistive technologies;
EU Proposal: Delete (f) (Subsumed in new e bis.)
(g) ensure organisations of persons with disabilities are consulted when
standards and guidelines for accessibility are being developed;
EU Proposal: Delete (g) (Subsumed in reworded (c))
(h) provide training for all stakeholders on accessibility issues facing
persons with disabilities.
EU Proposal: Delete (h)
KENYA
Draft Article 19
ACCESSIBILITY
Substitute the word ‘appropriate’ with the word ‘progressive’ in 1 so that
it reads:
1. States Parties to this Convention shall take appropriate progressive
measures to identify and eliminate obstacles, and to ensure accessibility
for persons with disabilities to the built environment, to transportation,
to information and communications, including information and communications
technologies, and to other services, in order to ensure the capacity of
persons with disabilities to live independently and to participate fully
in all aspects of life. The focus of these measures shall include, inter
alia:
Delete the word public between the word ‘of’ and ‘building’ and insert the
phrase ‘intended for use by the public’ between the word ‘buildings’ and
the word ‘roads’ and delete the phrase ’publicly owned’ between ‘and’ and
‘workplaces’ in 1 (a) so that it reads:
(a) the construction and renovation of public buildings intended for use
by the public, roads and other facilities for public use including schools,
housing, medical facilities, in door and out-door facilities and publicly
owned workplaces;
2. States Parties shall also take appropriate measures to:
Delete the word public between the word ‘in’ and ‘buildings’ and insert
the phrase ‘intended for use by the public’ between the word ‘facilities’
and ‘signage’ in 2 (a) so that it reads:
(a) provide in public buildings and facilities intended for use by the public,
signage in Braille and easy to read and understand forms;
Delete the word public between the word ‘to’ and ‘buildings’ and insert
the phrase ‘intended for use by the public’ after the word ‘facilities’
in 2
(b) so that it reads:
(b) provide other forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including
guides, readers and sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility
to public buildings and facilities intended for use by the public;
Delete the word public between the word ‘of’ and ‘facilities’ and insert
the phrase ‘intended for use by the public’ after the word ‘services’ in
2 (c) so that it reads:
(c) develop, promulgate and monitor implementation of minimum national standards
and guidelines for the accessibility of public facilities and services intended
for use by the public;
Delete the word public between the word ‘provide’ and ‘facilities’ and insert
the phrase ‘intended for use by the public’ between the word ‘services’
and the word ‘to’ in 2 (d) so that it reads:
(d) encourage private entities that provide public facilities and services
intended for use by the public, to take into account all aspects of accessibility
for persons with disabilities;
MEXICO
Proposal to Article 19.- June 1, 2004
1. States Parties to this Convention shall take appropriate measures, gradually
to identify and eliminate obstacles, and to ensure accessibility for persons
with disabilities to in the built environment, furniture and equipment,
to transportation, to information and communications, including information
and communications technologies, and to other services, so that any person
with disabilities can access, move around, exit, be oriented, to be evacuated
in emergency conditions and communicate in a safe and autonomous way, adopting
the necessary measures in order to ensure the capacity of persons with disabilities
to live independently and to participate fully in all aspects of life. The
focus of these measures shall include, inter alia:
a. the construction and renovation of public buildings, roads and other
facilities for public use, including schools, housing, medical facilities,
in-door and out-door facilities and publicly owned workplaces;
a. identify and eliminate, systematically, existing architectural obstacles,
to transportation and communications, with the aim to facilitate their access
and use by persons with disabilities;
b. the construction and renewal of public buildings, roads and other indoor
and outdoor public facilities, such as schools, housing, medical establishments
and public property work spaces;
b. c. the development and remodeling of public transportation facilities,
communications and other services, including electronic services.
2. States Parties shall also take appropriate measures to:
a. provide in public service spaces with visual and tactile signaling, as
well as the use of international accessibility symbols, to orient persons
with disabilities; buildings and facilities signage in Braille and easy
to read and understand forms;
b. provide qualified personnel to assist and guide persons with disabilities
in public service spaces; other forms of live assistance and intermediaries,
including guides, readers and sign language interpreters, to facilitate
accessibility to public buildings and facilities;
c. assist persons with disabilities, if required, with interpreters of sign
language and/or guides or companions;
d. develop, promulgate and monitor implementation of minimum national standards
and guidelines for the accessibility of public facilities and services;
e. encourage private entities that provide public facilities and services
to take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities;
f. undertake, and promote and disseminate research, development and production
of new assistive technologies, giving priority to affordably priced low
cost technologies;
g. promote universal design and international cooperation in the development
of standards, guidelines and assistive technologies;
h. ensure organizations of persons with disabilities are consulted when
standards and guidelines for accessibility are being developed;
i. provide training for all stakeholders on accessibility issues facing
persons with disabilities;
j. promote among persons with disabilities the benefits they can obtain
from the use of new information technologies and telecommunications.
UN System organizations
OHCHR
See references to international human rights conventions and jurisprudence.
National Human Rights Institutions
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS
Intervention at the Third Session:
Article 19
Thank you chair, for the opportunity. On behalf of National Human Rights
Institutions, I would like to offer a few comments.
National Human Rights Institutions recognize the importance of Article 19.
We see this article as fundamental in ensuring that people with disabilities
are able to effectively participate in society and necessary for achieving
equality.
We therefore believe that this article cannot and should not be ambiguous
or vague.
More particular, in relation to
- 1 (2), we propose the deletion of the word “public” and replace it with
the word “all”. We seek the deletion of the words “for public use”
- We would like the word “road” to be moved after the word “including”.
Lastly in this subsection, we would like to see the deletion of the words
“publicly owned” before the word “workplaces”.
Chair, private buildings should not be exempt from ensuring accessibility
just as they are not for example, exempt from complying with fire safety
requirements or need for emergency exits in buildings.
These are standard requirements articulated in domestic regulations and
should be expanded to include accessibility for persons with disability
as a standard requirement.
Chair, in this vein, we would like this article to make provision for the
development of regulations on accessibility at a national level.
In regards to article 2 (c), we would like to delete the word “public” appearing
before the word “facilities” and include at the end of that section the
words – “and infrastructure”.
Chair, the proposed deletions would render paragraph 2 (d) redundant. And
so, we would seek its deletion in its entirety.
Finally, at a conceptual level, we recognize that the concept “Universal
design” is well known and understood in the disability sector. However,
there may be a danger in the wider international context of it being seen
as the lowest common denominator and therefore would seek its deletion.
However, if paragraph (3) includes a definition of universal design, we
believe that these concerns would be allayed. We note that the EU has sought
to address this.
Lastly, we seek the deletion of paragraph (2) (h) and would like to underscore
that accessibility should also cover the recognition of sign language as
a language.
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Article 19 – Accessibility
1. States Parties to this Convention shall take appropriate measures to
identify and eliminate obstacles, and to ensure accessibility for persons
with disabilities to the built environment, to transportation, to information
and communications, including information and communications technologies,
and to other services, …
The Commission is supportive of this draft Article and all its subparagraphs.
The Commission is of the view that ensuring accessibility to transportation
should be at minimum with respect to “public transit” (as apposed to personal
transit vehicles), and regardless of whether such transit is owned or operated
by private or public entities.
2.(c) Develop, promulgate and monitor implementation of minimum national
standards and guidelines for the accessibility of public facilities and
services;
The Commission is supportive of this provision and has prepared several
public reports and submissions and recommendations on accessible public
facilities and services in this regard including: Submission of the Ontario
Human Rights Commission Concerning Barrier-Free Access Requirements in the
Ontario Building Code; Human Rights and Public Transit Services; Submission
of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the Ministry of Citizenship and
Immigration Regarding the Consultations to Strengthen the Ontarians with
Disabilities Act; Dining Out Accessibly – An Accessibility Audit of Select
Restaurant Chains in Ontario.
2.(d) Encourage private entities that provide public facilities and services
to take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities;
The Commission would be supportive of a stronger positive obligation being
placed on private entities and on the State in this regard.
Under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, private entities that provide public
facilities and services have a duty to accommodate persons with disabilities
short of undue hardship.
With respect to the State’s obligation, the Ad Hoc Committee might wish
to consider one of the recommendations made in the Commission’s report The
Opportunity to Succeed: Achieving Barrier-free Education for Students with
Disabilities: that governments at all levels use "the force of procurement"
to promote the adoption of universal design standards for accessibility,
and that only materials complying with such standards should be purchased
(also see the Commission’s comment under draft Article 13 above).
Non-governmental organizations
Intervention at the Third Session:
Draft Article 19
Accessibility
Mr Chairman:
Thank you for this opportunity to address the Ad Hoc Committee.
This is a fundamentally important article in this convention, which is directed
towards the removal of the structural barriers that disable people with
impairments within our societies. However, the scope of the article as it
is currently drafted is inadequate to remove many barriers, as key areas,
such as goods, equipment, electronic commerce, aids and appliances are either
omitted, or not necessarily included in the terms used in the article. This
is principally because in the chapeau the article does not refer to key
areas and uses terms at different levels of generality; for example, “transport”
and communications,” are examples of “services” but “services” are listed
alongside them. This creates ambiguities and potential gaps in the scope
of the article.
To address these drafting problems, the chapeau should be redrafted to impose
a general obligation to remove all barriers in the areas of “the built environment,
goods, services (including transportation, information, and communications),
facilities, information technology, electronic commerce (including banking),
equipment, aids and appliances.” In this respect, we make the point that
this article might achieve more if it was more generally framed, and if
its specific applications, and implementation requirements were removed,
and taken up in more flexible subsidiary standards and advisory documents
developed through international cooperation once this convention enters
into force.
The article is also far too focused towards the built environment, which
either directly or by implication limits its applicability to other areas.
For example, sub-paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) limit the requirement to provide
Braille and sign languages interpreters to public buildings and facilities.
States must accept a general obligation to remove barriers in all aspects
of the social environment.
The article is also inappropriately limited to the ‘public’ sphere. Non-state
actors are responsible for most of the built environment, and goods, services,
facilities, information technology, electronic commerce (including banking),
equipment, aids and appliances. The article must be reframed to ensure that
the obligation to create an accessible environment applies to State and
non-State actors in equal terms.
One critical area clearly, but very inappropriately, excluded from this
article is domestic (or private) residential accommodation. The inaccessibility
of domestic residential accommodation is one of the greatest contributors
to the extra costs of disability (as funds must be expended to modify inaccessible
premises), to social isolation (as it prevents people with disability from
visiting friends and family on equal terms with others), and to reliance
on specialist services, which become necessary to compensate for the inaccessibility
of the domestic environment. It is essential that this convention mandates
universal design for residential accommodation.
We also believe the obligation to “develop detailed national standards for
accessibility” set out in paragraph 1 of the equivalent article in the Bangkok
draft ought to be included in this article.
We strongly believe the words “appropriate measures” in the first line of
the chapeau should be replaced with the word “progressive measures” to make
it clear that accessibility is to be achieved within a clear framework of
progressive realization.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this intervention.
BIZCHUT
Draft Article 19 – Accessibility
(a) Accessibility to every place that serves the public
The obligation to make privately owned buildings, facilities and services
accessible, as opposed to public buildings, facilities and services, is
stated weakly in the Convention, in the form of the State’s obligation to
“encourage” private entities to do so. Indeed, footnote 69 discusses the
question whether to expand the obligation to accessibility to every place
that is intended for public use.
In our opinion, the separation between public buildings, facilities or services
that are publicly owned and those that are privately owned is artificial
and discriminating in its claim; the notion that people with disabilities
should be restricted only to those public places that are publicly owned
– is unacceptable. We would like to note that in Israel, the outdated existing
accessibility law, even before undergoing current significant legislative
upgrading, is based on the principle that places open to and used by the
public must be accessible (not only if they are publicly owned). The position
stated in the current Convention Draft would actually result in regression.
Thus, the obligation to make all buildings, facilities and services used
by the public accessible should be determined, not just those in public
ownership.
Two principles can be used to moderate the resulting burden placed on private
entities: 1) gradually making existing locations accessible; 2) state participation
in expenses incurred by private owners carrying out adaptations.
(b) Participation of the state in expenses for adaptations
The principle of State participation in expenses connected to accessibility
is not foreign to the Convention: in the area of accessibility devices,
State participation in order to make assistive tools and technology available
to the public at affordable cost was established (see Articles 20(a) and
22(d) of the Convention, and our comments to Articles 13(c) and 22(b)).
Here too, State participation in expenses connected to accessibility incurred
by private owners, whether through direct participation or through incentives,
will add significant content to this obligation of private owners.
(c) Adding transcription and amplification as modes of making public places
accessible
Transcription is a typical accommodation for people with hearing impairments,
and should be added to the list of intermediaries and live assistance in
clause (b). Amplification, also a typical accommodation for people with
hearing impairments, should be added to clause (a).
(d) Standard of accessibility to residential buildings
In addition to the obligation to making public buildings accessible, we
suggest considering the issue of residential buildings. For example, requiring
the State to encourage the determining of a standard of accessibility for
the building of residential buildings should be considered.
EUROPEAN
DISABILITY FORUM
Draft Article 19 Accessibility
EDF supports a stronger prohibition of barriers to all new buildings and
other transport or communication premises. For currently existing barriers,
a timeframe for their elimination should be established.
Paragraph b) should include also auditory signals.
Paragraph d) should include a reference to public procurement and public
funds. This would mean that when an entity receives public funds or opts
for a public contract, the entity needs to provide its services in an accessible
way.
Some coherence is required between article 19 and article 20 on personal
mobility. Article 19 should be focused on the conditions a building or other
infrastructure should meet to ensure that it is accessible to all disabled
people. Article 20 would focus on measures to ensure that a disabled person
can freely move from one place to another.
This would mean for instance that sign language interpreters when they are
available in the public building would be included in article 19, but if
they accompany the disabled person to different places, it would be covered
by article 20.
There are references to assistive technologies in paragraphs e) and f) which
seem to be more suitable for the article 20 on personal mobility.
INDIAN NGO CONSULTATIVE MEETING
Draft Article 19
32. Augmentation of draft article 19-b) is suggested by adding “auditory
signal” among other measures for accessible transportation. Therefore the
modified text of article 19-b) should read as “the development and remodelling
of public transportation facilities, communications and other services,
including electronic services and auditory signals.
INTERNATIONAL SAVE THE CHILDREN ALLIANCE
Draft Article 19 - accessibility
This is a high priority for young disabled persons. The article does cover
most of the issues and also requires governments to consult with disabled
people. However, to often, children get left out of those processes.
Suggested changes
19.2 States Parties shall also take appropriate measures to:
g. ‘ensure organisations of persons, including children, with disabilities
are consulted when standards and guidelines for accessibility are being
developed’;
JAPAN DISABILITY FORUM
<Article 19>Accessibility
Original Text of the Draft
2. States Parties shall also take appropriate measures to:
(b) Provide other forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including
guides, readers and sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility
to public buildings and facilities;
JDF Supports the WFD’s proposal:
(b) 1: provide other forms of live assistance including guides, readers
and captioning, to facilitate accessibility to public buildings, facilities
and information;
(b) 2: provide sign language interpreters as intermediaries to interpret
information from spoken language into sign language and from sign language
into spoken language for access to public services, education and participation.
LANDMINE SURVIVORS NETWORK
DRAFT ARTICLE 19 COMMENTS
Although issues of accessibility are addressed in places throughout the
draft text, given the enormity of the issue it is logical to have a specific
article focused on accessibility issues. This is also the approach taken
in the UN Standard Rules. (Cf. UN Standard Rules on the Equalization of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, Rule 5)
Draft Article 19 take a comprehensive approach to accessibility, addressing
both issues of physical accessibility, as well as accessibility of information
and communications. Importantly, the objective if the article is independence
and full inclusion of people with disabilities “in all aspects of life.”
Because of the need to maintain the relevancy of the convention over time,
it may be necessary to re-examine some of the forms and methods of accessibility
referenced in Draft Article 19, to ensure that the terms used have relevancy
across cultures and will not quickly become outdated. As with Draft Article
6 (Statistics and Data Collection), the Ad Hoc Committee may wish to consider
the establishment of a technical advisory body to harness expertise, and
disseminate research on issues of accessibility.
PHYSICAL
DISABILITY COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA
Accessibility: Draft Article 19
The issue of access in its broadest term applies to all people with disability.
A clear definition of access is required that also includes a component
on cultural access.
REHABILITATION INTERNATIONAL
Draft article 19
Accessibility
Rehabilitation International is joined in this intervention by Disabled
People International (DPI), the World Union for Progressive Judaism, European
Disability Forum, Inclusion International. Landmine Survivors Network, World
Federation of the Deaf, World Blind Union.
Our operating philosophy – Accessibility gives freedom reality
We attach the greatest of importance to the right of access. Human rights
is concerned with more than protecting people against power – it is also
about restoring power to people over their own lives. It is often said that
human rights are indivisible and interdependent. We believe that this interdependence
is demonstrated most graphically in the context of disability. Protecting
the right to liberty against unwarranted State intrusion is one thing. Making
liberty and choice a reality for persons with disabilities is another. Form
and substance are inseparably linked and we view this draft Article as bringing
both together.
We view the right of access as something that opens up gateways into the
lifeworld – whether the built environment or the communications or transport
environments. It makes the right to liberty real. The built environment
defines common public space – a space where people interact and lead their
daily lives. The communications environment enables people to interact effectively
with each other and with public and private entities. The transport environment
links the built environment.
The harsh reality is that the built, communications and transport environments
were constructed without factoring in the difference of disability – without
respecting and accommodating the difference of disability. Inaccessible
schools has a particularly cruel impact on children whose personal identify
is spoilt by early exclusion and who may never get a chance to overcome
educational deficiencies in later life. The waste to all is palpable.
Our challenge now is twofold. It is to tackle the barriers left to us by
this historical legacy by ensuring that as many of them as possible are
removed. It is also to guarantee that in any future buildings or communications
and transport environments the rights and needs of persons with disabilities
are effectively factored in from the outset. This is not merely the right
thing to do – it is also cost efficient.
It is in this light that we view draft Article 19
Need for Legally Enforceable and Flexible Accessibility Standards
We welcome the draft Article 7.2 (c) with respect to the development and
promulgation of national standards and guidelines. We would prefer to insert
the word’ enact’ instead of ‘promulgate’ to make it plain that these standards
should have the force of law. We would also like to see the addition of
the word ‘enforce’ to make it plain that public authorities should have
an obligation that goes beyond the mere monitoring of the effectiveness
of these standards. We welcome the sentiment of ‘international cooperation’
in the development of standards. We can all learn from each other’s mistakes
and achievements.
With respect to accessibility standards we are not wedded to any particular
formula of words. We are more concerned to embed an operating philosophy
in the text that leaves as much flexibility as possible for new design solutions
to emerge. Flexibility is needed to enable the standards to be ratcheted
upwards and not remain static. The thinking we prefer is that the process
of ensuring accessibility operates at both a macro and a micro level. At
the macro level, efforts should aim at the greatest possible accessibility
for the greatest possible number. This may not in fact cover all persons.
That is why at the micro level there should be a requirement of sufficient
flexibility to adapt designs to suit particular categories of persons with
disabilities. Both levels are needed. It is this forward looking dialectic
between the macro – the general - and the micro – the personal - that needs
to be captured in the text.
It might be best to avoid a term of art such as ‘universal design’ in draft
Article 19 (2) (f) which can, despite the best will in the world, become
redundant as technology evolves and to settle instead on a flexible formula
of words such as ‘personal accessibility to all persons with disabilities’.
Having said that we do not oppose the term ‘universal design’ – we are only
concerned that it would be interpreted flexibly to allow for scientific
innovation.
Requirement of Accessibility Must Apply to all New Environments form the
Outset
It is our view that buildings in the public sector and all new communications
and transport environments should automatically be designed in accordance
with the principles of accessibility. We see no reason for exclusions from
this since it has been proven to be cost effective to do so from the very
outset. We welcome the strengthening of the obligations contained in draft
Article 19 (1) (a) to this effect.
With respect to the historical legacy of inaccessible public buildings we
would like to see a provision in the draft text (perhaps Article 19 (1)
(a)) requiring States Parties to formulate and implement retro-fitting or
renovation plans. We should not have to wait for renovations to occur. They
should be required to occur in order to roll forward a rational plan of
accessibility. Progressive achievement may mean progressive – but it also
means achievement. We therefore suggest new sub-paragraph to paragraph 1
to read
States Parties shall formulate and implement plans to progressively reduce
and eliminate barriers to accessibility for people with disabilities with
respect to existing public buildings.
Accessibility Must be Guaranteed where Public Services are Delivered through
Private Sector
We would like to see a strengthening of the provisions on the private sector
contained in draft Article 19.2 (d). Our world is one in which public services
are being steadily privatized. If the convention is not alive to this trend
and if it does not adequately reach such public activities that increasingly
take place in a private context it will not be able to achieve its underlying
aims. It is in this regard that we remind delegates that general Comment
5 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights explicitly states:
In a context in which arrangements for the provision of public services
are increasingly being privatized and in which the free market is being
relied on to an ever greater extent, it is essential that private employers,
private suppliers of goods and services, and other non-public entities be
subject to both non-discrimination and equality norms in relation to persons
with disabilities. In circumstances where such protection does not extend
beyond the public domain, the ability of persons with disabilities to participate
in the mainstream of community activities and to realize their full potential
as active members of society will be severely and often arbitrarily constrained.
Therefore, we propose that the word ‘encourage’ as used in draft Article
19 (2) (d) should be replaced by the word ’require’. Furthermore, all new
buildings in the private sector that house public amenities or accommodations
(such as restaurants) must, in our view, conform to the principles of accessibility
from the outset. We reiterate the cost-effectiveness of such an approach.
All ‘Key Services’ must be Accessible
We are of the view that ‘key services’ provided to the public whether through
the public or the private sectors. These services correspond to basic living
needs as well as equal citizenship rights. These include but are not limited
to physicians’ offices, community services, cultural sites, etc. They should
be accessible to persons with disabilities without exception. Without proper
access basic citizenship rights such as access to Government services including
access to courthouses will be undermined. We therefore propose the following
be added after 19.1.(a):
All buildings that house key services for persons with disabilities must
be made fully accessible.
Particular Proposals regarding Sign Language
We believe that Article 2(b) might be further subdivided along the following
lines to address firstly, personal assistants, and secondly, sign language
interpreting:
2(b)1 provide other forms of live assistance including guides, readers and
captioning to facilitate accessibility to public buildings, facilities and
information,
2(b)2 provide sign language interpreters as intermediaries to interpret
information from spoken language into sign language and from sign language
into spoken language for access to public services, education and to facilitate
participation.
The Need to Insert an Obligation of Reasonable Accommodation
We believe that there is some space in draft Article 19 for the concept
of ‘reasonable accommodation’. Inaccessible plant should never be used as
an excuse not to deliver services to persons with disabilities. We therefore
suggest that that Article 19(2)(b) be amended to include a reference to
‘other forms of reasonable accommodation’ after the words ‘live assistance’.
Need to Insert Language on Incentives as well as Effective Sanctions
We would also prefer to see some language added to the draft text to the
effect that States Parties should develop both incentives as well as effective
sanctions for failure to comply with domestic standards of accessibility.
Incentive measures can include tax credits, tax holidays, direct subsidies,
low interest loans and technical assistance and advice.
Need to More Explicitly Cover the eEnvironment
We believe that new information and communications technologies (ICTs) pose
both a threat as well as an unparalleled opportunity for persons with disabilities.
We therefore suggest that a separate sub paragraph be crafted to deal specifically
with ICTs. This is particularly important given the worldwide trend in the
migration of public services online. The Information Society risks exacerbating
the isolation of persons with disabilities as both consumers and citizens.
The convention provides an ideal opportunity to ensure that this does not
happen.
ACCESSIBILITY
Article 19:
Article 19 and 20 must be re-written and merged together. There is some
overlapping.
Either the term “built” or “physical” environment should be used, but rather
referring to universal design in the environment.
All private own facilities and services intended to be used by the public
should be accessible for PWD and should be covered in this convention.
Draft Article 19, Accessibility
A sign language interpreter is like an interpreter for any other language,
who interprets from one language to another. Sign language interpreters
have many years of special training to become qualified interpreters, just
as spoken language interpreters do. In many countries sign language interpreters
are put in the same category as personal assistants for people with disabilities,
which is a big mistake.
Item 2 (b) mentions assistants and intermediaries. This wording will, in
many ways, cause confusion and lead to a wrong interpretation of meaning
and needs. Deaf people do not need a sign language interpreter “to facilitate
accessibility to public buildings…” as is mentioned in item 2 (b). WFD proposes
that item 2 (b) be divided into two parts, (b) 1 and (b) 2; the first to
address personal assistants and the second sign language interpreting services.
The present Draft Article 2 (b) can become 2 (b) 1 with only small changes,
as follows:
(b) 1: provide other forms of live assistance including guides, readers
and captioning, to facilitate accessibility to public buildings, facilities
and information;
The new paragraph 2 (b) 2 concerning sign language interpreting services
should be as follows:
(b) 2: provide sign language interpreters as intermediaries to interpret
information from spoken language into sign language and from sign language
into spoken language for access to public services, education and participation.
Footnote 71 will then not be needed, if item 2 (b) is divided in this way.
Home | Sitemap | About us | FAQs | Contact us |
© United Nations,
2006 |