 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Back to: Third Session | Draft Article 19 Comments on the draft text Download complete compilation of comments: MS Word National Human Rights Institutions Ontario Human Rights Commission 1. 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) 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) 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). 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 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. 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 Ltd The issue of access in its broadest term applies to all people with disability. 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. 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: The new paragraph 2 (b) 2 concerning sign language interpreting services
should be as follows: Footnote 71 will then not be needed, if item 2 (b) is divided in this way. |