Disabled people are world leaders, no longer a silenced authority

 UK DDPOs are world leaders, said Committee :-) Congrats to #DDPOsGeneva & all who participated from home nations. #CRPD17

This piece is heart felt, it looks at the voice of disabled people in matters of planetary concern. I think that the interests brought to the UNCRPD fall into that category.

The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities met in Geneva on 25th Aug. They concluded that cuts in services has led to a 'social catastrophe' for disabled people! The UK Government had  been called to answer questions relating to the inequality imposed on disabled people due to cuts and changes in welfare. Disabled and Deaf People's Organisations from the UK asked many questions relating to human rights, disabled people's entitlements under the law and the government's actions regarding meaningful engagement and monitoring impact of austerity measures. 
I noticed the media remains silent that day?! 

As global citizens disabled people are entitled to have their human rights upheld by virtue of being human.  Like anyone else, they have a right to participate in all the opportunities of their communities and to flourish. Disabled people’s lack of voice on the global stage has been a central finding of my PhD study which explores accountability, sustainability and human rights. So you can imagine how interested I was to follow tweets from the delegation. 

The number of Disabled and Deaf People's Organisations showed the scale of the issues facing disabled people across the UK. Their concerns included unfairness in legal services, and that the Equality Act itself does not cover the full scope of human rights. The committee had previously raised the significant risk of regression of rights under CRPD, because while the access to human rights enshrined by the Convention it is too limited. The review took into account Inquiry concluding ‘grave and systemic violations’ of disabled people’s rights. In the past 2 years UNCRPD has received over 2000 pages of evidence from Disabled and Deaf People's Organisations. These include  Discrimination in housing, definition of disability from a rights understanding definition of disability is impairment based, not human rights based;, that disabled women experience disproportionate barriers to support in gendered crimes; the disproportionate use of MH act on people from BME community - more likely to be subject to detention and compulsory treatment; cuts in legal aid & access to justice; children with disabled parents who are forcibly separated from their families.

 

Today the UK government was being questioned after having ignored many questions regarding the human rights of disabled people, and thereby leaving them facing "serious discrimination" by "evading their duties” and ignoring the recommendations of the UNCRDP. The committee chair concluded the proceedings with the words: “social care spending cuts have caused a human catastrophe for disabled people in the United Kingdom”. A confirmation that “There is extensive evidence of retrogression of Disabled people’s rights in the UK since 2010". Further comments raised the issue of Disabled and Deaf People's Organisations having been ignored, it was said that this silencing has contributed to human rights abuse and violations. In short, the “UK can't continue calling itself a world leader in human rights without progress on #CRPD”.

“UN Committee: We note with concern the UK delegation has described measures on paper with little or no evidence of their impact #CRPD17”

In its answers the UK government stated legislation, funding and measures to address the inequality bearing down on the disabled population. However, there appeared to be no baselines, no evidence and muddled thinking. The outrage in twittershpere was palpable. Disabled people’s experience certainly did not match the vague answers given to the committee. Consultation and coproduction are not the same thing!! Lack of dialogue with Disabled and Deaf People's Organisations was highlighted as a significant issue. Without working together how can outcomes be empowering - change cannot be responsive when needs are not addressed. Welfare changes, planned and organised without addressing accessibility, barriers and societal pressures only as hurt to existing  injustice. Adding difficulty, disregard and inexperience to the process causes harm, indignity and shame. Decisions made with a disregard to disability equality, dis/ableist prejudice or the impact of complex and compounding pressures adds to their negative impact. Pricing legal services beyond the means of a population who are shunned from employment, is very much like kicking the very individuals already blamed for lack of opportunity.

I can understand the consternation of delegates, when in answering questions on education, parental options were offered as answers but masked the reality that many options are rubbish for disabled learners – education far from inclusive.

 Choice is not a reality in a system lacking equity! No acknowledging was made of learners being bullied - racism and homophobia both in mainstream and in segregated institutions – with those with learning difficulties worst affected. Inequalities in mental Heath services, again, affecting BME communities and those with complex diagnoses, the divides again left unanswered.   

How do we even begin to think about putting thing right when the human story has to date hushed disabled storytellers? More specifically how can governments begin to be account-able - tell a story that describes adequately what they do to uphold their responsibilities - the duty to insure disabled people's rights are met.  Sustainability is at the heart of many of the questions put to the UK government here. Particularly in view of global sustainability goals, because of the aims to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all. Being accountable to less advantaged groups means taking action against lack of equity. This means understanding the complex nature of prejudice, discrimination and inequality - here the gov failed.  It needs to mean knowing disabled people’s interests, understanding specific group interests to be able  to speak on their behalf – not speaking for them or acting on the widespread prejudiced ideas about their supposed lack of authority on the matters of their experience.

see also: https://storify.com/eqtraining/crpd17