|
Daily Summary related to Draft Article 18
PARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL AND PUBLIC LIFE
Prepared by Landmine Survivors Network
Volume 3, #5
January 9, 2004
Afternoon session
Commenced: 3:10pm
Recessed: 1pm
RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN POLITICAL AND PUBLIC LIFE
Sierra Leone suggested including language to ensure that electoral rules
and procedures take due account of the particular circumstances of all
PWD. In Sierra Leone procedural constraints during the first election
after the atrocities prohibited some people from voting. For instance,
fingerprints were required, yet many voters did not have hands.
WFDB noted that most deaf-blind people do not get any information about
the voting situation their countries. As such they do not have opportunity
to make a choice or build an opinion. Voting is impossible for deaf-blind
people and the more electronic the voting system more inaccessible it
is. One barrier is that in many countries it is not possible to have another
person in the voting booth. WFDB urged that the article include language
on accessible voting mechanisms and well as the right of to form disability
organizations and the right of these organizations to act politically.
The latter is stipulated in the Standard Rules.
II noted that people with intellectual with disabilities are often refused
the right to take part in political life particularly if they live in
an institution.
DPI Africa recalled situation in South Africa where not all disabled
people could vote in secret, especially blind people, because the ballet
papers did not allow for that. Perhaps there is a need to include the
right to secret ballot. WBU concurred, and proposed to replace the word
“elect” wtih “secret voting rights.” It is important to establish security
around voting rights.
Ireland called for inclusion of language from Article 8 (c) and (d) of
the European Union draft and questioned the approach of the Chair’s Article19
(a) in particular the use of the word “guarantee”. Ireland preferred to
look at specific measures as it did with all the rights the WG was addressing.
Furthermore, Article 25 of ICCPR, on voting and elections, is confined
to citizens and this article should take that into account. Article 25
recognises a “right to vote” and “an opportunity to be elected”; it does
not recognise a right to be elected and this should also be taken into
consideration.
Canada likewisedrew attention to Article 8 (c) and (d) in EU text as
the term “promote” is used which Canada preferred to “guarantee” used
in the Chair’s text given that states cannot guarantee success. Regarding
activities of political parties, Canada cautioned not to be too prescriptive
in terms of government action regarding these parties.
Japan expressed concerns over the meaning of the language in Article
19 (c) of the Chair’s draft “participation of PWD and their organizations
in all decision-making processes.” Japan explored whether this provision
gives extra rights to PWD. Japan suggested that the convention specify
until what stage should PWDs should be involved.
Thailand stressed that the word “guarantee” is not too strong. If other
people without disabilities have the right to participate, elect or be
elected, than PWD should have equal rights in that sense. If there is
any difficulties for PWD, the mechanism should be adjusted or even eliminated
to restore or guarantee equality. Thailand has a secret voting method
for blind people, probably due to the low-tech method of voting in Thailand.
The Chair’s draft omitted the part in BKK –the right to form an association.
Thailand pointed out that Article 19(3), though it mentions the organizations
of PWD, it does not specifically endorse the right of PWD to establish
their own organizations. Regarding the phrase “all decision-making processes,”
this should be contextualised so that disabled people have the same rights
as non disabled people but particularly on the issues that affect their
lives.
SAHRC proposed deleting the sentence between “based on sex” and “especially”
in Article 19 as it is repetitious. Regarding 19 (b), the SAHRC proposed
the language “to participate equally in the activities and administration
of political parties” instead of the word “guarantee.”
South Africa drew attention to Art 11 (a) of the Mexican text on page
100 of the Compilation as a means to facilitate the involvement of PWD
in political life.
Ireland drew attention to Article 7 (a) of the EU draft regarding participation
in decision-making by PWD. Given that there are areas of decision-making
that are restricted to all people, the language of all decision-making
processes is possibly too broad.
India supported the intervention initially made by Canada on the merits
of word “promote” as opposed to “guarantee.” IAID stressed that it is
essential to include participation by PWD and their organizations both
in decision making as well in consultation regarding issues of relevance
to PWD.
Mexico suggested that Article 11 of the Mexican text might be a basis
to specify the measures that apply to PWD in their capacity as citizens,
which is obvious but not superfluous. The right to be elected should be
included furthering Article 25 of ICCPR which grants that opportunity.
Article 8 in the EU text is too limiting.
In relation to Article 19 of its draft text on page 109 of the Compilation,
Venezuela emphasized the importance of the right to security and the right
of PWD to engage in free association and form their own organizations.
Venezuela proposed language that would enable PWD to exercise the right
to vote with secret ballot.
Ireland explored whether “discrimination based on sex” alone should appear
in the article, given that the ICCPR cites a large number of discriminations.
DPI supported the text in Paragraph (c) as essential to enabling PWD
to exercise their right to vote. It noted that PWD are often ignored by
politicians given the many obstacles to voting and political exercises.
Volume 3, #8
January 14, 2004
Afternoon Session
Commenced: 3:14
Adjourned: 6:08
PARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL AND PUBLIC LIFE
Ireland expressed concerns over language in the text proposal contained
in section b (i). The three categories included there—political parties,
civil society and public administration--did not belong together. Political
parties and non-governmental organizations (civil society) should be independent
of the state. Public administration, on the other hand, is an element
within the state. It is appropriate for States to undertake stronger commitments
related to areas directly under their control than to those that are not
or should not be under their control. The wording of this paragraph should
be examined. Regarding political parties and NGOs, there is a right to
freedom of association not just for PWD but for others as well. There
is a balance in international law regarding the right to join something
but subject to the rules of the organization concerned. Clearly, it is
a problem if the rules of an organization are discriminatory against PWD
but our wording must be careful regarding the degree of commitment and
compulsion. Regarding paragraph c, the words “on an equal basis as others”
should come after “participate” instead of before it.
LSN called for a general provision on participation in a separate article,
that is broader than voting and holding public office, though this is
essential. The current draft could be strengthened, in line with existing
international legal precedents with the following language:
In applying the provisions of this Convention, States Parties shall:
a) Consult the people with disabilities concerned, through appropriate
procedures and in particular through their representative organizations,
whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative
measures which may affect them directly;
b) Establish means by which these peoples can freely participate, to at
least the same extent as other sectors of the population, at appropriate
levels of decision-making in elective institutions and administrative
and other bodies responsible for policies and programs;
c) Participate in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of plans,
and programs for national, regional and international development that
may affect them directly.
d) The result of the public participation shall be taken into account
as far as possible.
The Coordinator drew attention to language in Article 4 under the heading
General Obligations in WG text A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.3/Add.1. This article
outlines obligations on States to include PWD and their representative
organizations in the development of policies and legislation to implement
the convention.
WNUSP drew attention to the phrase “the right and opportunity of citizens
with disabilities to vote and be elected” in provision (a) of this text.
This language might be weaker than what appears in the Chair’s draft.
In this article it is more a question of promoting an environment where
this right can be exercised as opposed to a strong statement of the right
to vote and be elected, which is preferred. Responding to the WNUSP, the
Coordinator noted concerns expressed in previous discussions of the WG
that a person does not have the “right” to be elected. The language in
this article, as it now stands, is consistent with the ICCPR.
Canada concurred that that the aim of the draft language is to provide
the opportunity to be elected as distinguished from a “right.” Canada
also agreed with Ireland about distinguishing areas of government and
public administration from other categories cited in the text and supported
the approach of encouraging States Parties to take measures as appropriate
for certain areas.
Sierra Leone expressed concerns over the word “all” as a qualifier for
“decision-making processes.” The Coordinator noted that the qualifying
language in provision (c) “on an equal basis with others” is designed
to soften the obligation of States “to ensure that PWD and their organizations
on an equal basis to others, participate in all decision-making processes…”
Jamaica noted that provision (c) is ambiguous. Irrespective of the issue
of disability, all people are not able to participate in all decision-making
processes. If a person is not an elected official, he or she does not
have the right to participate in certain processes. Granting participation
should be on an equal basis with others.
Japan echoed wording regarding “all” decision-making processes.
Regarding the language to “allow, where necessary, the provision of assistance
in voting to citizens with disabilities,” DPI proposed that the phrase
“of their choice” be inserted after assistance. It is essential for PWD
to determine what kind of assistance they need.
Ireland suggested that Canada’s proposal be inserted in a footnote. There
should be different levels of commitment for the public sector as opposed
to areas which do not fall under direct governmental control. With respect
to DPI’s proposal, given that most States need to regulate voting procedures,
this proposal goes further than most countries would be comfortable with.
Addressing the area of participation in decision-making, Thailand asserted
that issues related to disability should include PWD beyond an equal basis
with others, as these directly affect their lives. In addition, political
parties in all countries are under certain laws, and they should not have
right to discrimination against people based on disability.
Serbia and Montenegro agreed that the issue of participation in public
administration should be distinct from participation in civil society.
Back to Draft Article
|
