 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Back to: Third Session | Draft Article 24 Comments on the draft text Download complete compilation of comments: MS Word National Human Rights Institutions Ontario Human Rights Commission 1.(c); 1.(d) The Commission is supportive of this draft Article. In relevance to paragraphs 1(c) and (d), the Commission has made recommendations to government on the issue of captioning in theatres in two of its reports: Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission Concerning Barrier-Free Access Requirements in the Ontario Building Code; and, Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration Regarding the Consultations to Strengthen the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. There is case law relevant to subparagraph 1(c). In the decision of Vlug v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp.,1 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the CBC discriminated against Henry Vlug, who is deaf, by failing to provide captioning of all of its programming. The decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (then Board of Inquiry) in Turnbull v. Famous Players Inc. (2001), 40 C.H.R.R. D/333 (Ont. Bd.Inq.) has relevance for subparagraph 1(d). The Tribunal found that the movie theatre chain discriminated based on disability by having theatres that were inaccessible to wheelchair users or which barred admission to wheelchair users because they did not have appropriate facilities for them. The Tribunal also found that the theatre chain could not make out a defence of undue hardship and ordered the chain to make the theatres accessible within two years. 3. Similar to the Commission’s comment under draft Article 13 above regarding the diversity of deaf individuals, the Commission suggests that this provision be specifically directed to persons who are Deaf and who identify themselves with the Deaf culture/community and use sign language as their preferred mode of communication. EDF proposes to reword paragraph 1 a of this article as follows: "enjoy access to artistic and cultural practice and benefit of all necessary human and technical assistance and adapted services, to have the opportunity to develop and utilise their creative, artistic and intellectual potential, not only for their own benefit, but also for the enrichment of their community.” EDF also proposes to add a reference to audio description to paragraph 1 c. While the priority should be put on the possibility for disabled people to access and take part in mainstream sport, support should also be provided for special sport activities. EDF supports the reference made in paragraph (3) and suggests to refer to “persons who are deaf and use sign language”. As mentioned when referring to article 14, not all deaf people are sign language users. Indian NGO Consultative Meeting In Article 24.d-Add “mobile library” after “library”. Draft Article 24 incorporates many of the elements set forth in the UN Standard Rules, Rule 11, which addresses the State’s responsibilities to ensure that people with disabilities have equal opportunities for recreation and sports. Other specialized conventions have similarly recognized such rights. (Cf., Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 31) Draft Article 24 usefully covers three separate activities that contribute to physical fitness, mental well-being, and social interaction of people with disabilities. (Cf. UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Sport for Development and Peace) Draft Article 24, paragraphs (1)-(3), provides coverage of the right to participate in cultural life, drawn extensively from the UN Standard Rules, Rule 10 (Culture). Draft Article 24(3) relates not to cultural life, but the right to culture. Draft Article 1(a) provides content to the concept of participation in cultural life, which is drawn from UN Standard Rules, Rule 10, para. 1. Draft Article 24(1)(b) relates to the accessibility of cultural materials via accessible formatting. The Ad Hoc Committee may wish to consider the relationship of this provision to other Draft Articles (e.g. Draft Article 13 (Freedom of Expression and Opinion, and Access to Information), and Draft Article 19 (Accessibility)) and whether its level of specificity is appropriate to meet the objectives of the provision and to ensure relevancy over time. Draft Article 24(1)(c) relates to accessibility in relation to other cultural media. What remains unclear is the distinction between the concept of access to “cultural materials” in sub-paragraph 1(b) and access to “cultural activities” in sub-paragraph 1(c). Draft Article 24(1)(d) seems to relate to access to the built or physical environment, although this is not clear. Draft Article 24(3) addresses a distinctly separate right under international law – the right of minorities, in this case deaf persons, to enjoy their own culture and linguistic identity, and in particular the right to use their own language. The right to use one’s own language entails the freedom to speak one’s own language without interference, a right that has been frequently violated in respect of the deaf community in many countries. (Cf. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 30; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 27; Human Rights Committee, General Comment 23, 1994, HRI/GEN/1 Rev. 5, pp. 147-150) Given the distinction between the right to culture and the right to participate in the cultural life of a community, it may be useful to include in the convention a separate article on cultural identity. Draft Article 24(4) (a) and (b) are complimentary provisions. Paragraph (a) refers to mainstream sporting activities and (b) speaks of the equalization of access to “instruction, training, and resources” needed for meaningful participation in the activities. In (a), the “mainstream sporting activities” may be interpreted as excluding non-mainstream activities, or activities only for and by people with disabilities. The Working Group debates over the meaning are reflected in Footnote 111, and warrant further consideration by the Ad Hoc Committee. The language in paragraph (b) lacks the expressed goal of disability-specific programs, which should be included in the text. The language should include integrative, as well as disability-specific programming. The term “same” should be replaced by the term “necessary” as this formulation better reflects the varied context within which persons with disabilities participate in sport (again, recognizing disability specific programming). (Cf. UN Standard Rules, Rule 11, para. 4) Paragraph (4)(c) addresses issues covered in UN Standard Rule 11 (1) and (3). The sub-paragraph merges two issues, namely accessibility and children with disabilities in sporting activities. This conflation makes the subparagraph confusing. The Ad Hoc Committee may wish to consider revision to increase clarity. The language of paragraph 4 (d), as drafted, is somewhat vague. It would be helpful for the Ad Hoc Committee to specify the nature of the services targeted by this provision. It remains unclear how this sub-paragraph relates to sub-paragraph (b). The importance of extending sport and recreational opportunities to particularly marginalized sectors of the disability community is reflected by the reference to children with disabilities in Draft Article 24(c), but may usefully be extended to two other groups that are at a comparative disadvantage because of their dual minority statues, namely, women and refugees. The importance of extending sporting activities to these two disadvantaged groups has been recognized by the UN (Cf. UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Sport for Development and Peace, p. 8, 9; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Article 10(g); UNHCR REFUGEE PROTECTION: A Guide to International Refugee Law, http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=MEDIA&id=3d4aba564&page=publ, UNHCR Agenda for Protection, p. 37) Para 1 (c), must also include audio description. Footnotes Footnote 1: Vlug v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (2000), 38 C.H.R.R. D/404 (Can.Trib.) |