A note on terminology

Does interaction with persons with disabilities require special skills?

Interaction with persons with disabilities is a matter of persons, not of disabilities.

When interaction with persons with disabil-ities occurs under conditions of equality, no special skills are required; persons with dis-abilities are not special persons; they may feel special (or most likely discriminated) when there is no accommodation in place to facilitate their interaction with others. How-ever, if the environment has been adjusted appropriately (e.g., assistive devices, sign

language interpreters, support persons) and attitudes are in line with a social/human rights approach, interaction can be smooth.

Arrangements should not be considered spe-cial but normal or, using a concept from the Convention, universal.

In the street, interaction with persons with disabilities requires common sense and respect; within a professional context, inter-action with persons with disabilities requires professionalism. Nothing more and nothing less of what our clients or acquaintances without disabilities would expect. Interac-tion is easier when the rules are the same for everyone and everyone is welcome.

Depending on the person we need to meet, interview or work with, some arrange-ments and/or preparation might be needed.

This is something we should be used to as part of our daily work and for all types of interviews and meetings. Are all physical and linguistic barriers eliminated? What about the psychological ones?

Do not assume or act as if persons with disabilities are heroic or courageous just by virtue of having a disability. This emphasizes difference. Persons with disabilities have strengths and weaknesses just as persons without disabilities.

Terminology

Terminology that is used to refer to or interact with persons with disabilities is none-theless important. Certain words and phrases can be offensive, undermining and/or super-ficial. People are not definable on the basis of their disability. Appropriate terminology promotes respect and reflects deeper under-standing of disability. Proper communication is important with all types of interlocutors. This skill is key for participants who develop daily

SEARCH

contact with persons with disabilities, inter-vene with authorities advocating and reaffirm-ing their rights, carry out interviews or draft reports.

Persons with disabilities and their repre-sentative organizations have chosen certain terminology, such as “persons with disabil-ities”, in which case it is important to use such terms. Yet, when defining acceptable terminology there is always a risk of moving towards political correctness, which in turn can be a barrier to free and fluid speech.

Nonetheless, be aware of the fact that some language can reinforce stereotypes and be offensive to persons with disabilities. If we do

not use appropriate language, how can we expect credible attitudinal change?

• Always think before you talk.

• Ask the person you are talking to about anything you are unsure about.

• If a person prefers one term to another, then use that term.

• There is no need to be afraid of saying “I see what you mean” to someone who is blind. This expression is perfectly under-standable and conveys a clear message that goes beyond vision in the narrow sense; it is not offensive.

SEARCH

Background

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of Per-sons with Disabilities and its Optional Proto-col on 13 December 2006. On 30 March 2007 both were opened for signature at United Nations Headquarters in New York.

An unprecedented 81 countries signed the Convention on the opening day. But what led to this momentous event?

Before the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, other human rights instruments already addressed disability, either as part of a general focus or more specifically. Some, such as the Uni-versal Declaration of Human Rights, the Inter-national Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—which together constitute the International Bill of Human Rights—promote and protect the rights of everyone, including persons with disabilities, through the non-discrimination clause. In all three instruments, article 2 obliges States to guarantee human rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, lan-guage, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The reference to other status encompasses disability as grounds for pro-tection from discrimination.

Specialized human rights treaties, like the Convention against Torture, the Convention

on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and others, contain provisions protect-ing against discrimination. The Convention on the Rights of the Child specifically recog-nizes the need to protect against discrimina-tion on the grounds of disability. It also spe-cifically recognizes the right of the child with a disability to enjoy a full and decent life.

The authoritative statements by the com-mittees supervising the application of human rights treaties (the United Nations treaty bod-ies) are also important. The most relevant to persons with disabilities are general com-ments No. 20 (2009) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which includes disability among the grounds cov-ered by “other status”, and No. 5 (1994), which defines factors causing discrimination against persons with disabilities; general recommendation No. 18 (1991) of the Com-mittee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which addresses the double discrimination affecting women with ties (as women and as persons with disabili-ties); and general comment No. 9 (2006) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the rights of children with disabilities.

There have also been regional develop-ments in Africa, the Americas and Europe, such as the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (1999).

SEARCH

Other relevant human rights instruments are the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (1975); the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons (1982);

and the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1993). Although not legally binding, these instruments, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, symbolize the moral and political commitment of States to take measures to protect persons with disabilities, including through national legislation and policies.

So, if an international legal framework already existed, why was it necessary to have a convention on the rights of persons with disabilities?

There were different reasons:

• The Convention was necessary to reaf-firm the human rights of persons with disabilities and to ensure their partic-ipation in society as equal members and subjects of rights. Persons with dis-abilities continued to be perceived as passive recipients of assistance rather than rights holders. Both progress and challenges related to the development agenda failed to take into account the reality of persons with disabilities. Eco-nomic growth did not always result in social equality; and subsistence econo-mies, such as in poor countries, some-times marginalized groups with less power and fewer means. Persons with disabilities faced numerous patterns of exclusion. While standard-setting led to some improvements, the overall situation remained very unbalanced. Generally, persons with disabilities continued to be invisible in their societies and their mar-ginalization often increased the risk of human rights abuse.

• The Convention was necessary to address more comprehensively the chal-lenges facing persons with disabilities and to better protect and promote their rights through a legally binding instru-ment. In 2001, OHCHR commissioned a study on the rights of persons with dis-abilities and the existing human rights system. The study concluded that exist-ing instruments and mechanisms were not paying sufficient attention to the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities; that the absence of an explicit legal protection of persons with disabilities represented a gap; that a human rights approach required reinforcing certain concepts to replace or clarify previous standards.

For example, the right to free and com-pulsory education for persons with dis-abilities means the right to an inclusive education, to be enjoyed with the other members of society. Existing treaties did not make this clear. It was therefore crucial to review some of the previous approaches and adopt a legally bind-ing instrument that could provide clarity to human rights concepts and standards as well as set out clear legal obligations on States. The study also underlined that persons with disabilities and their repre-sentative organizations were not using existing human rights standards and mechanisms, such as petitions systems under human rights treaties, to protect and promote their rights. This reaffirmed the need for a disability-specific human rights treaty.

• The Convention was the result of a strong advocacy strategy put in place by organizations of persons with dis-abilities, civil society and States. Civil society, particularly organizations

SEARCH

of persons with disabilities (DPOs), international organizations and aca-demics supporting the disability move-ment were at the forefront of efforts to advocate and lobby for the Conven-tion. Their action defined the overall approach towards the Convention, making it clear from the beginning that any development in the area of dis- ability had to be fully comprehensive, which ensured the involvement of all relevant participants rather than States only. The participation of persons with disabilities in important international forums and activities which preceded the Convention, such as the first inter-national review of the implementation of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons, was key in preparing the path for a different approach.