 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is Part 2 of 2. Return to the first part. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Working Group 1:
Chair: Mr Eric Rosenthal, Mental Disability Rights International Rapporteur: Ms Janet Lord, Landmine Survivors Network Report of Rapporteur The Working Group discussed how Disability NGOs can engage meaningfully with the existing UN human rights machinery as well as with UN human rights mechanisms still to be developed, particularly a UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities. The utilisation of existing UN human rights machinery by Disability NGOs and their involvement in the ensuing drafting process of an international convention present both challenges and opportunities for people with disabilities and their representative organisations. The Working Group made the following preliminary points which should inform the participation of the disability community in international human rights processes: Any discussions concerning the human rights of people of disabilities should begin with some consideration of the fundamental values reflected in the international human rights movement of people with disabilities (e.g. the values of dignity, autonomy, equality and solidarity as articulated in the Quinn/Degener study); Medical/charity models of disability have characterised traditional approaches and have been reflected in the marginalisation of people with disabilities in existing UN human rights processes. The traditional models of disability are characterised by decision-making for people with disabilities, not by people with disabilities. The human rights approach, informed by the social model of disability, sees people with disabilities not as passive recipients of charity but as active bearers of rights. All international human rights processes must reflect a social model of disability, adopt a human rights orientation, and provide for full and meaningful participation of people with disabilities and their representative organisations. Meaningful participation in existing UN human rights mechanisms and in the drafting process of a new convention depend upon the opportunity and capacity for participation. The following are important factors in this context:
Raising Awareness The Working Group had the following comments with regard to the need for raising awareness about the human rights of people with disabilities in order to enhance participation in international human rights processes:
Capacity- building It is essential to build a cohesive, coherent coalition among people with disabilities and their allies to have meaningful engagement in human rights processes, especially in relation to the current treaty process.
The current process of drafting a treaty
WORKING GROUP 2: Chair: Mr Brian Burdekin, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Rapporteur: Mr Frederick Tong, Hong Kong Equalities Commission Report of Rapporteur Points with consensus The role and functions of national institutions should include:
Elements in the approach of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the establishment of a UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesJohn Rowan, Head of Human Rights Unit Since the setting up of Human Rights Unit, following publication of the White Paper on Foreign Policy in 1996 (which, incidentally, included the rights of the disabled as one of the priority rights issues to be addressed), we have engaged in a consistent policy of outreach to the NGO community. Through bilateral contacts with organisations, the Joint Standing Department of Foreign Affairs/NGO Committee on Human Rights and the Annual NGO Forum which attracts up to 400 participants, we have benefited from very productive channels of information. It is important that these channels flow in both directions and we are gratified to hear from the feedback we receive that this is the case. I have heard it stated on several occasions today that disability groups are now clearly moving into the mainstream of human rights advocacy and the general view appears to be that this is a good thing. In that event, and this was the subject of the discussions of Working Group 1, chaired by Eric Rosenthal, how can disability NGOs engage successfully with the UN human rights machinery? I would suggest that a good starting point at the national level is through some of the structures I have mentioned in regard to the DFA’s outreach to NGOs. This structure is replicated in other countries. We and the NGOs have an obvious interest in working together as far as possible to achieve aims which we hold in common. The Convention is one such aim. In July 2000, we included in the agenda of the 3rd annual NGO Forum on Human Rights, a panel discussion on the Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The previous year at the Forum, we held a panel on the UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies with emphasis on the role of NGOs. A representative of the UN International Service for Human Rights, which is the body charged by that organisation with assisting NGOs in participating effectively in the process, gave an outline of how this can be achieved. The reports of those discussions together with more information on the International Service are available from the Unit. This is one element in our approach. It is essential that NGOs identify the relevant points of contact in their national administrations and use those contacts to expand their networks and spheres of influence. Some will be more receptive than others but, increasingly, governments, in their own and the common interest, recognise the value of creating partnerships with civil society. This leads us to matters of practicality. For NGOs, resources are severely limited. The advent of e-mail and the Internet has enhanced the potential of many but the old problems of finance remain. As in all areas of activity, the pooling and consolidation of resources and effort can achieve a certain amount. Building alliances, as was mentioned in the Working Group, is a rational approach both in practical and policy terms. In the Department, through the Human Rights and Democratisation budget line of Ireland Aid, we have been trying to assist in building the capacity for action of NGOs in various fields of human rights activity. We will be recommending to the Minister of State a project aimed at raising the awareness of rights protection of the disabled and strengthening the capacity of legal aid in China. Among the organisations involved are the China Rehabilitation Centre, China Disabled Persons’ Federation and the China Children’s Deafness Rehabilitation Research Centre. The UNDP, which is advising the Chinese side, views the implementation of this project as very important, having regard to China’s ratification, in February of last year, of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is felt that the project, in strengthening the capacity of disability groups, will be a pilot scheme in the development of democratisation in China. We are, therefore, seeking actively to promote awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities and their capacity to vindicate those rights. The Human Rights and Democratisation budget line of Ireland Aid is currently undergoing a root and branch re-evaluation with a view to identifying practical options (in light of a growing budget) to facilitate greater coherence with human rights policy within the Department of Foreign Affairs. As disability has been established as a priority area within that policy, we shall be looking towards an enhancement of our capacity to become more involved in practical support for projects in that field. In pursuing this policy priority, we should be mindful of the fact that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights which has responsibility for the treaty bodies, is itself severely restricted in its work by the pitiful core funding it receives through its regular UN budgetary allocation. The situation whereby the High Commissioner has to rely on voluntary contributions amounting to two and a half times the size of the regular budget to enable her to discharge her functions, is obviously not a healthy one. All those active in the field of human rights should make it their business to campaign for an increase in the resources of the Office of the High Commissioner. Ireland Aid representatives recently paid a programming visit to Geneva and significant increases in the allocations to the High Commissioner’s Office will be made this year. The Third Committee of the UN General Assembly in New York last November saw the adoption of a resolution on an International Convention to Promote and Protect the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. This resolution was sponsored by Mexico and we offer the Mexican Government our congratulations on achieving this significant breakthrough. It is our intention, with the support of our EU partners and other countries transcending all regional boundaries, to build on this achievement at the forthcoming session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. As you may be aware, Ireland takes the lead on the biennial resolution on the rights of persons with a disability at the CHR and we will be drawing on a wide range of sources: the work and advice of Bengt Lindqvist; the seminal study of Professor Gerard Quinn; the Mexican resolutions at the Third Committee and the Commission on Social Development as well as the input of our own colleagues to fashion a resolution which takes the issue forward. The following are among the new elements we are considering introducing into the text of the draft:
These, in broad outline, are the various strands to our approach. It is our intention to make progress on all fronts, and simultaneously, with any luck. One thing we do know. We will not achieve much, on any front, without the support of you, the advocates and activists. Thank you
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONWhat should the Convention contain and what drafting process should it follow?Chair: Mr Donal Toolan, Coordinator, Forum of People with Disabilities Discussion focussed more on the drafting process than on the content of a convention. Many of the points raised during the Working Group sessions were reiterated and some further developed:
There was considerable support for the suggestion that NGOs should be consulted in relation to the terms of reference of the Ad Hoc Committee established under General Assembly resolution 56/168 and for the proposal that governments should include representatives of people with disabilities in their delegations to the Ad Hoc Committee and GA meetings later this year. Regarding the possible content of a convention, Mr Holger Kallehauge, Danish Council of Organisations for Disabled People, distributed copies of a draft Convention on the Fundamental Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Mr Kallehauge said he hoped the draft would provoke reactions and stimulate ideas. He explained that his draft contained only six operative articles about fundamental rights: the long-term goal should, in his view, be a comprehensive convention on all rights __ political, civil, economic, social and cultural __ of people with disabilities. There were some suggestions that the convention might include some of the Standard Rules. A number of participants thought it would be useful to catalogue human rights abuses and cases of discrimination. There appeared to be general agreement that effort should be concentrated, at this stage, on getting the drafting process right. The need to inform people with disabilities generally about developments in relation to a convention was raised. It was suggested that use be made of all disability conferences and fora, national and international, to inform and to discuss the convention. Events such as the African Decade of Disabled Persons and the forthcoming conference in Osaka to mark the end of the Asia/Pacific Decade were mentioned as examples of occasions when this might be done. It was suggested that the Irish resolution at the upcoming meeting of the Committee on Human Rights might be used in some way to promote a joint approach between the CHR and the Ad Hoc Committee.
PLENARY AND CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONSby Dr Arthur O’Reilly, Conference Rapporteur The title of today’s conference is ‘Towards a United Nations Convention on the Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities: the voice of civil society’. The discussion has focussed largely on the process that might be used to develop a convention and on the possible content of the convention. Before commenting on the outcome of our discussions, I think it is worthwhile to say a brief word about the context in which these developments are taking place, so that we do not lose sight of a number of important and related issues. And I want to sound a slight note of caution, just in case we are taking too much for granted. In 2000, the Commission on Human Rights(CHR) adopted resolution 2000/51 which, inter alia, invited the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in cooperation with the Special Rapporteur on disability of the Commission for Social Development, to examine measures to strengthen the protection and monitoring of the human rights of persons with disabilities and to solicit input and proposals from interested parties. Following the resolution, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) decided to place greater emphasis on encouraging UN human rights mechanisms, including the special rapporteurs and treaty bodies, to pay greater attention to the rights of persons with disabilities, and on encouraging disability NGOs to increase their interaction with UN human rights mechanisms. The Quinn/Degener study, a summary of which we heard today, represents what the OHCHR calls the ‘first outcome of the project the Office designed for this purpose’, which suggests that further actions may be expected. The preliminary findings of the study were discussed on 14 January 2002 at a meeting hosted by the High Commissioner and attended by representatives of over thirty States, a number of disability NGOs, and UN bodies and agencies. According to the High Commissioner, participants agreed on the need for a multiple approach to disability, noting that the study findings underline how the drafting of a new convention should not be seen as an alternative to strengthening attention to disability within the existing international human rights system (‘twin-track approach’). The discussion pointed up the need to continue and reinforce social development efforts in the field of disability and to integrate better UN work in that domain (‘multi-track approach’). I mention this to highlight the fact that considerably more action, and more integrated action, should be expected from the UN in relation to disability, in addition to the work on a new convention. And while we await with interest the full report of the Quinn/Degener study, the excellent presentation from Professor Quinn made it abundantly clear that the final report will contain a wide range of observations, comments and recommendations designed to enhance the future use of the UN human rights system in the context of disability. These recommendations will be addressed to governments, treaty monitoring bodies, the Office of the High Commissioner, the Commission on Human Rights, national human rights institutions and NGOs. This will provide us with an invaluable agenda for the future. It is vitally important that a programme to address that agenda be devised so that action on all those items may be developed, concurrent with the important work on the new convention. Which brings me to the Ad Hoc Committee, established by General Assembly resolution 56/168 last December. The Committee is open to the participation of all Member States and observers to the UN. It was set up to consider proposals for ‘a comprehensive and integral international convention to protect and promote the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities’, and is to take into account the recommendations of the Commission on Human Rights and the Commission for Social Development. The resolution also calls upon the Office of the High Commissioner and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs to cooperate in the process. The first meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee is expected to be in August or September, 2002. There are a number of important issues to be addressed urgently in relation to the Ad Hoc Committee. These include
The resolution establishing the Ad Hoc Committee was an initiative by Mexico. Although the Committee will not have its first meeting for another six months, we understand that Mexico proposes to show a first draft of a convention at a conference two weeks or so from now. In the light of earlier comments today about the need for openness, transparency and full and meaningful participation by all interested parties, and the need to hasten slowly but effectively, it is important that the welcome achievement of the resolution is complemented by a thoughtful and considered process of developing a proposed convention. It is timely to recall that there have been two earlier attempts at the UN to establish a disability convention. One of the reasons for failure given by the then Special Rapporteur was that many representatives considered that existing human rights documents seemed to guarantee persons with disabilities the same rights as other persons. The Quinn/ Degener study would appear to rule out that pretext from any future argument. But it reminds us, if we needed reminding, that this is primarily a political process and that we can by no means be sure that the desired outcome is guaranteed. As was repeatedly emphasised already, it is imperative that we get the process right if we hope to be successful. It is important, nevertheless, to acknowledge the tremendous progress that has been made, and to recognise the opportunity which has been created. The energy, enthusiasm and ability to work together which infused our discussions today will hopefully move us closer to achieving our common objective – a United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Appendix: List of participants• Mr.Bengt Lindqvist, UN Special Rapporteur on the UN Standard Rules on the equalisation of Opportunities for people with Disabilities • Prof. Gerard Quinn, National University of Ireland, Galway • Mr.Justice Donal Barrington, President, Irish Human Rights Commission • Ms. Claire O’Connor, Director, National Disability Authority • Mr.Eric Rosenthal, Mental Disability Rights International • Dr. Arthur O’Reilly, Conference Rapportuer • Ms. Janet Lord, Landmine Survivors Network • Mr. Donal Toolan, Co-ordinator, Forum of People with Disabilities • Mr. Brian Burdekin, Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights • Mr. Frederick Tong, Hong Kong Equality Authority • Ms. Joelle Balfe, International Consultant (CIR, NCD) • Mr. Thorsten Afflerbach, Council of Europe Secretariat • Ms. Anna Bruce, Disability Law and Policy Unit, NUI, Galway • Mr. Frank Conaty, Department of Accounting and Finance, NUI, Galway • Ms. Sarah Field, International Labour Organisation • Mr. Luis Martin Garcia, Embassy of Portugal, • Mr. Liam Herrick, Irish Council for Civil Liberties, • Mr. Philip Johnsen, Royal Danish Embassy, • Mr. Holger Kallehauge, Danish Council of Organisations for Disabled People • Mr. Padraic Kenna, NUI, Galway • Ms. Rita Kwiotek • Ms. Ute Michel, Inclusion International • Mr. Frank Mulcahy, Disabled Peoples’ International • Ms. Patricia Noonan, NUI, Belfield, Dublin • Ms. Anne O’Connor, Centre of the Study of Developmental Disabilities, Belfield, Dublin • Mr.John O’Gorman, Inclusion International • Ms. Kate Raymond, Enable Ireland • Ms. Lorraine Robinson, Galway Centre for Independent Living • Ms. Annie Ryan, St. Joseph’s Association, Blackrock, Dublin • Mr. Brendan Sinnott, European Commission • H.E. Dr.Alberto Schepisi, Ambassador, Embassy of Italy • Mr. David Travis, Enable Ireland • Mr. Stefan Tromel, European Forum of People with Disabilities • Ms. Maria Walls, National Federation of Voluntary Bodies • Mr.Richard Whittle, Disability Law and Research Unit, UK • Ms. Marion Wilkinson, National Disability Authority • Mr. Ruaidhri O’Connor, Enable Ireland • Ms. Fidelma Murphy, Enable Ireland • Ms. Oonagh Kenny, Marino School, Enable Ireland • Ms. Mary Ruddy, NUI, Galway • Mr. Tony Jordan, Sandymount School Clinic • Ms.Jane Mc Cullough, Law Reform Commission • Ms. Deirdre Carroll, National Association for the Mentally Handicapped of Ireland • Mr. Frank Burke, Sligo County Council • Ms. Christine Burke, Faculty, NUI, Galway • Ms. Alexis Donnelly, Association for Higher Education Access and Disability • Ms. Grainne Archer, Galway Centre for Independent Living • Ms. Theresa Cronin, Galway Centre for Independent Living • Mr. Mike Moore, UK Disability Unit • H.E Dr. Augustin Basave, Ambassador, Embassy of Mexico • Miguel Vilchis, Deputy Head of Mission, Mexico • Mr. John Rankin, British Embassy • Ms. Mary Keys, Law Faculty, NUI, Galway • Ms. Siobhan Barron, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform • Mr. Simon Godziek, Richmond Fellowship International, UK • Mr. John Dolan, Disability Federation of Ireland • Ms. Anne Johnson, Joint International Unit • Mr. Donie O’Shea, National Disability Authority • Mr. John Rowan, Head of Human Rights Unit, Department of Foreign affairs • Mr. Tim Harrington, Human Rights Unit, Department pf Foreign Affairs • Ms. Deirdre Ni Fhalluin, Human Rights Unit, Department of Foreign Affairs • Ms. Caron O’ Grady, Human Rights Unit, Department of Foreign Affairs • Ms. Jo Keegan, National Disability Authority • Ms. Christine Whyte, Director of Public Affairs, National Disability Authority • Ms. Mairead Kelly, National Disability Authority • Ms. Katelin Fox, Human Rights Unit, Department of Foreign Affairs • Ms. Caitriona Ingoldsby, UN Section, Department of Foreign affairs • Ms. Grainne Hehir, Development and Cooperation Division, Department of Foreign Affairs • Ms. Jacqui Brown • Ms. Triona Kearns, Enable Ireland • Ms. Claire O’Connor, Director, National Disability Authority • Ms. Clare Lenehan, Enable Ireland • Ms. Christy Lynch, KARE • Mr. Bill Mannering, People with Disabilities in Ireland • Ms. Cliodhna O’Neill, REHAB Group
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||