European Messenger
No 12 – October 2005
Editorial Campaigning for legislation to combat discrimination The non-discrimination fight in Latvia Belarussian Association of the Visually Handicapped - Challenges and hopes for the future The UN Convention - Will it protect our rights ?
Editorial
Dear Readers,Welcome to the 12th edition of the “European Messenger”, brought to you by the members of the European Blind Union Commission on the Rights of Blind and Partially sighted people.
We do hope you will find our information interesting and valuable.
Definitely one of the most popular topics in the last few years was nondiscrimination policy. It seems that there is a lot of talking about that, however there is still a lack of interesting and easy to understand information. Most of you probably have already familiarized with the report of Dr.Rodolfo Cattani, which was read during the Prague Seminar. In this publication we suggest the information prepared and presented by Mr. Branislav Mamojka at the seminar Fight with Discrimination, which took place in Vilnius at the end of September of this year. The article deals with the mainstreaming of disability issues into policies at all levels.
We also offer to the readers the information prepared by our colleague from Latvia. The article describes Latvian disabled people, modeling themselves up on EU nondiscrimination policy, fight for more beneficial national laws. We also have some information about Belarus Association of Visually Handicapped. At the end of September upon the invitation of the Lithuanian Association of the Blind and Visually Handicapped the deputy chairman of Belarus Organization of the Blind visited Lithuania. Certainly, journalists haven’t missed the chance to interview the guest regarding the situation of the blind in Belarus. So we are really glad having the possibility to share the information with The Messenger readers.
The newsletter also includes our chairman’s information on the UN Convention - progress at the recent UN Ad Hoc Committee.
Should you want to express your thoughts or contribute to the Messenger, please contact Tony Aston, Chairman EBU Commission on the Rights of Blind and Partially Sighted People
taston@enterprise.net
Or
Audra Jozenaite
E-mail: audra@lass.lt
Back to contents
CAMPAIGNING FOR LEGISLATION TO COMBAT DISCRIMINATION:
HOW A NEW EU MEMBER ADDRESSES THE MAINSTREAMING OF DISABILITY ISSUES BY
DEVELOPING STRATEGIES AND TOOLS
Branislav Mamojka, President of the Slovak Blind and Partially Sighted Union, presented a paper on this theme in Vilnius in September 2005.
This article is based on his paper.
Our membership of the EU not only brings changes in legislation, economic and social systems, but also creates changes in our vocabulary and introduces new ideas.
One of the frequently used new words and notions is 'mainstreaming'. We are still discussing the meaning and its impact with respect to disability.
Mainstreaming is a concept that not only relates to disability. It can also be interpreted as inclusion into main stream processes, activities, planning, implementation and evaluation. In the context of disability, it is closely related to the creation of equal opportunities. It is not only a word, it is a modern strategy for the creation of favorable policies at all levels – local, regional, national and European.
It is also worth mentioning that in Slovakia the development of society and the acceptance of European values has resulted in the acceptance of concepts such as 'equality' and 'equal rights'.
We have moved from the concept of equal opportunities as a product of specifically directed projects to the recognition of the need to adopt non-discrimination policies at local, regional and national levels. This includes the principle of equality for all citizens in every aspect of life.
So, what are the characteristics of mainstreaming in the context of disability ?
Mainstreaming is the incorporation of principles, strategies and practices of equal opportunities into everyday activities of government and other public authorities in all phato monitoring and evaluation. It must be based on cooperation with disability groups as well as specialists in the field of non-discrimination.
Mainstreaming is a long term strategy for the creation of policies to meet the needs of everyone. It has the potential to change the culture and structure of society for the benefit of all citizens, included those with disabilities. It puts people, their needs and experiences in the centre of the process for developing policies. Mainstreaming leads to more effective government, as it helps to establish more transparent policies and promotes participation in politics. It helps to combat deficits in democracy by supporting broad participation in policy creation by encouraging consultation.
Mainstreaming also inhibits the adoption of discrimination in policies and programmes and complements legislation that addresses discrimination. Equality is one element in the concept. New legislation prohibits discrimination at national and European levels, but this alone is not enough to ensure equal participation of people with disabilities.
In some European countries the rights of people with disabilities are protected by law, but differences between theory and practice are often dramatic. Before disabled people are able to enjoy full citizenship, they experience a number of barriers created by society. Mainstreaming, applied strategically at all levels helps to dismantle these barriers, by introducing good legislation and supportive policies.
In summary, the mainstreaming of disability issues could be defined as a systematic integration of priorities and needs of people with disabilities into all policies and practices to ensure equal opportunities for disabled people, taking into account their needs.
Why has European politics moved from the 'specific project' approach to 'mainstreaming' ?
Additional measures to create equal opportunities are expensive to implement. People with disabilities are not a negligible proportion of the population. They represent about 10%. Additionally, sustainable development requires a change of system. Isolated projects for people with disabilities could have good results but can’t ensure comprehensive access and sustainable development. Equal access to education, employment, health, transport, the built environment, culture, sport, goods and services require the application of the principles of human rights.
The EU, other European authorities, national and local authorities in many member countries have established working relationships with disability NGOs. This facilitates mutual understanding and effective consultation. In some EU countries, like Sweden, Netherlands and the UK, mainstreaming is more developed and NGOs are recognized as equal partners, collaborating on the solution of disability issues.
The flexibility of disability organizations and their great capacity for innovation has been recognized in the UN Standard Rules Article 18. it is recommended that NGOs s should identify needs, participate in planning, implementation and enhancement of services relevant to people with disabilities, and thus significantly contribute to increase public awareness.
Our organizations have substantial experience and knowledge, we provide support and services in many areas of interest, and we help to integrate visually impaired people into society. We work directly with disabled people where they live; we know and understand their needs. We are functioning as diagnosticians, identifying the shortcomings in society and our environments.
It is not necessary to be cautious about working with NGOs, we have much to offer governments. The role of NGOs, including blind organizations representing the interests of visually impaired people, should not be underestimated in the process of mainstreaming.
I have so far only stressed the positive aspects of mainstreaming. However, there are some risks and dangers. These are not necessarily directly attributable to mainstreaming. Nevertheless, they can be a consequence of its implementation. I will describe two of these.
In the process of mainstreaming many decision makers are inevitably involved. They are usually generalists, or specialists in different fields, but not in the field of disability. These people can incorrectly evaluate problems, ignore differences in the needs of different disability groups and apply inappropriate cross-disability approaches to disability related problems of all kinds, or apply solutions that may be acceptable for one disability group across all disability groups.
This is the case, for example, on issues of inclusive education and institutional care. In some countries only inclusive education is available. This might be acceptable for some disability groups or some levels of impairment. We know that there are groups of blind and partially sighted and deaf-blind children with additional impairments who are not able to get appropriate education in mainstream schools, whose families and teachers are not able to provide them with adequate services. It is also known that totally inclusive educational systems do not always maintain specialist teaching skills. For visually impaired children, both inclusive and special education is needed, perhaps the model of resource centers combined with itinerant teachers would be most appropriate.
There is also resistance against institutions providing residential care. There are people who are not able to live independently. Provision for the inclusion of severely disabled people in the community often lags behind the decision to close residential institutions.
Another factor is that disability issues are not adequately represented in measures or regulations and are sometimes ignored. For example, the EU structural funds for years 2007 to 2013 underestimate disability issues.
Why do disability issues dribble out from regulations and recommendations ?
One reason might be a tendency to prefer equal opportunities to positive action, and sometimes to neglect or reject positive action, in spite of both equal opportunities and positive action being recognized as tools for social inclusion. The social model of disability recognises that problems arise not so much from medical conditions, but mostly from the disabling effects of barriers created by society. This is not true. I am still blind, with many problems, in spite of the fact that I have a talking computer, I use a white cane, I can cook etc. Many people believe that the establishment of equal opportunities removes disability and that positive action is not allowed.
This erroneous opinion might accidentally be promoted by us when we frequently present achievements to demonstrate our independence and capabilities rather than identifying problems and difficulties. We are often pushed to this kind of presentation by journalists and politicians. These achievements are often sitting on top of a hidden iceberg of problems.
We are working to make our blindness invisible, but some visibility is needed, otherwise our problems are ignored. Like most normally sighted people, most visually impaired people are not able to achieve these exceptional successes. However, they are expected to do so. Too much positive propaganda can hurt our interests and damage our image.
As well as disability specific issues there are cross-disability issues which have impact on other disability groups and coordination can add strength to our campaigning. Access to taxi services, social and health insurance are examples of issues where co-ordination with other disability interests can be beneficial. The cross-disability approach is preferred by politicians, since they need to speak with fewer bodies. Unfortunately, politicians tend to apply this approach to subjects that are not cross-disability issues. For instance, when there was a problem with financial support to journals published by disability NGOs, it was proposed to assist only one cross-disability journal – for blind, deaf, wheelchair users, diabetics - in different formats.
In all new EU member countries the main bodies dealing with cross-disability issues should be National Disability Councils, established with the help of EU and EDF. This was not an easy task in slovakia. There was a great resistance against any umbrella organization, based on experience with the previous unified organization of all disabled people. The Council is active in the field of legislation and information dissemination – fields where member organizations have common interest. The main principle of its activity is to deal exclusively with cross-disability issues, recognized as such by all member organizations. Specific disability issues can be considered only if relevant specific disability member organization explicitly request it.
Strict application of this principle guarantees the independence of member organizations. This helps us to maintain good relations between member organizations and develops the National Disability Council's capacity for common action. It has been successfully applied in many new legislative fields and in action to attract EU project funding.
Back to contents
THE NON-DISCRIMINATION FIGHT IN LATVIA
Peteris Locans,
Vice-Chairman of the Latvian Society of the Blind
Latvia is one of the three Baltic states which joined EU in the spring of
2004. Like many other new EU countries, it has undergone great changes over the
past 10 years. Being aware of the obligation to respect international policies,
including non discrimination principles, the state has already made some
positive steps in this direction.
Two main directives, namely directive 200043/EK which introduces principles of
equal treatment irrespective of race and ethnic origin and directive 2000/78 for
equal treatment in employment and occupation have already been incorporated into
national laws. Non discrimination principles are also incorporated in the
Latvian Constitution, as well as in the National Labour Law.
This states in article 7: (1) Everyone has an equal right to work, to fair, safe
and healthy working conditions, as well as to fair work remuneration and (2) The
rights provided for in Paragraph one in this Section shall be ensured without
any direct or indirect discrimination – irrespective of a person’s race, skin,
colour, gender, age, disability, religious, political or other conviction,
ethnic or social origin, property or marital status or other circumstances.
Many positive changes in the non discrimination field have been initiated by non
governmental organizations, one of which is the Latvian Society of the Blind. At
the moment it unites 3800 members of 8000 visually impaired people, who
(according to provisional data) live in our country. One of our organization’s
priorities is to work to make national legislation more favourable towards
people with visual impairments. That is why we try to keep pace with trends and
changes that occur in the law-making process.
In order to be stronger we need to work in alliance and in cooperation with
umbrella organizations, as well as Ministries, principally the Ministry of
Integration. We jointly suggest amendments to different laws. At the moment we
are working on the Law of Foundations and Associations. Recently we have
prepared an amendment which would give the right to NGOs to represent victims of
discrimination before the court.
At present there are more then 6000 NGOs registered in Latvia. This is a very
wide spectrum of interest and the Latvian Society of the Blind feels a little
concerned that our voice will not be so distinctly heard when necessary. On the
other hand, being alone we are weak and we all know that there is so much to do
in future.
The practical application of nondiscrimination norms has not reached its fullest
potential for several reasons;
• Technical details (how to apply certain legislation norms are not fully elaborated
• Government lacks financial resources for different measures to accompany laws
• Ways of imposing punitive measures and sanctions on guilty persons is not adequately framed
• .People with disabilities are cautious to submit their cases to court because it takes a lot of time and substantial costs may be incurred, especially if the case is lost
Slowly, but steadily, our members are getting more aware of new opportunities
that EU legislation opens up for them. There is still a long time to wait till
all the people with visual impairments will benefit from non discrimination
legislation in their everyday life.
This year we had one precedent and an example of good practice. This is a story
about a young man in a wheelchair, who was not admitted into a night club. He
did not have any proof on the first occasion, but on his second visit he took
his video camera and other necessary measures to prove the case. After the
second visit, when he was not admitted to the club, the young man, together with
the Latvian National Human Rights Office negotiated the case with the club's
administration. They did not satisfy the demand for compensation and the case
went to court – focusing on the second instance. It took a whole year, but the
court awarded 5000 Euros to be paid by the night club to the young man. This
would never have been possible without the new non discrimination law. The story
was top news in Latvia and a real victory for the disability movement in Latvia.
Back to contents
BELARUSIAN ASSOCIATION OF THE VISUALLY HANDICAPPED - CHALLENGES AND HOPES FOR THE FUTURE
The journalist Alvydas Valenta (AV) interviews Victor Shestak (VS),
the Deputy Chairman of the Belarusian Association of Visually Impaired People,
during his visit to Lithuania in September 2005.
AV: You are the Deputy Chairman of the Belarusian Association of Visually Impaired people. What is the current status of your organisation ?
VS: We work and live under continuous stress. At the moment, we face many problems. Our status has been and continues to be greatly influenced by the market economy both in our country and in Russia. I refer to Russia because we sell the production made by our visually impaired people to Russia. We still have 16 industrial and 5 service enterprises. Markedly increased competition, cheap production from China and automation cause us concern. Moreover, some legislation disadvantageous to our enterprises has recently been introduced in Belarus. We now face a very serious question – can our enterprises be capable of normal functioning without any assistance from the state?
AV: You are saying that your organisation' activities relate to enterprises. Employment of blind people is perhaps the most important concern for you. Please describe how the other areas such as integration of the blind, services etc are being addressed.
VS: Your observation is absolutely correct. Traditionally we have been very dependent on the enterprises. I must explain that the Belarusian visually impaired people have not received a cent from the state for the last three years. How then are blind people in Belarus supposed to live? Until now, all the programmes and activities for visually impaired people have been funded from the profits of the Belarusian industrial enterprises. This is the problem that has led me to visit Lithuania. I wish to see how the Lithuanian Association of Visually Impaired People is able to manage without gaining any profit from enterprises. We believe it is important for blind people to participate in cultural activities, compete in sports, communicate and read books. However, the situation is more favourable for our sportsmen and women. The state supports sport for blind people and consequently blind and partially sighted athletes bring home lots of medals from various international competitions. Unfortunately, the situation in all other areas is depressing. Of course, our organization continues to seek governmental support. We not only keep trying but also continue to hope that the state sooner or later will recognise the needs of blind people.
AV: What about the rights and equal opportunities of blind people ? Is the concept of discrimination addressed by your organization ?
VS: It is. We argue that the state must take care of all its citizens equally. Why is it that a sighted person is in a position to have free access to a book at a library, and yet to enable a blind person to read the book, an organization for the blind has to do this? Our society is still under the delusion that it is the problem of the blind themselves. The same tendency is observed in the services area. We expect that the state will provide more support for our organization in the future and we will then be able to introduce various projects for blind people.
We must recognise that discrimination exists. I will give one example. A member of our organization graduated from the Institute of International Relations and has been awarded a diploma cum laude. He is a talented young person and knows three foreign languages. After graduation from the Institute, he was appointed to work at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Regrettably, the Ministry was afraid of the disability, and found lots of arguments against the employment of the young blind person.
AV: Do you encourage blind and partially sighted people to accept the challenge to look for open employment ?
VS: Certainly we do, but our society is not yet ready to accept people with disabilities. They are not welcomed and mostly receive negative responses. Whilst the young people are willing to integrate themselves into society, after receiving a negative response, they will often express their wish to work only in the enterprises for visually impaired people. Our organization does not fold its arms: we negotiate with both employers, the Ministry of Social Affairs and other governmental structures. However, for the time being, we have not obtained any positive results. It seems likely that many years may be required for our society to change.
A similar situation exists in education. There is not much integration of blind children into general education schools. Several instances of mainstreaming have demonstrated that sighted children do not accept their visually impaired peers. We find that visually impaired children acquire a sufficiently good education at special schools, staffed by qualified specialists. We are aware of different situations in other countries, but I believe that for the time being, visually impaired children in our country will be educated at special schools. Furthermore, teachers at these special schools will not give up their positions easily.
AV: In the past we used to see the representatives of your organization frequently represented at international events. I believe a representative from your organisation was delegated to work in the EBU Commission on the Rights of Blind and Partially Sighted People. At present, we see you only at rare intervals. Why is it so ?
VS: The reason is very simple. Only shortage of funds has impeded our international cooperation. Nowadays, our financial situation is even worse. A matter of great concern for us is the retention of the support and services provided by us, which we can no longer provide. I have already mentioned that some legislation is disadvantageous for us. A short time ago, we were forced to hand over a spacious building under construction since 1985. The building was intended to become a centre of rehabilitation and culture. Since we were lacking funds for the completion of the construction, though the sum required was not very large, we were forced to hand it over. We were not able to sell it because the funds assigned for the construction included a small amount of state funds.
AV: Here in Lithuania the debates about the president of your country as well as his relationships with non-governmental organizations are quite frequent. What are your contacts and achievements at the highest level ?
VS: We have dissociated ourselves from politics. We repeatedly talk publicly about this issue. Our concern is to take care of blind and partially sighted people, their education, rehabilitation and employment.
AV: Thank you for the interview.
Back to contents
THE UN CONVENTION - WILL IT PROTECT OUR RIGHTS ?
Tony Aston, Chairman of the EBU Commission on the Rights of Blind and Partially Sighted People, describes progress at the recent UN Ad Hoc Committee meeting and
explains the steps being taken to finalise the Convention.
The 6th meeting of the AHC took place at the UN building in New York in the first two weeks of August. Kicki Nordström represented the World Blind Union (WBU) throughout this period. Dan Pescod, International and European Campaigns Manager and I joined Kicki for the first week. Fred Schroeder and Harold Snider from the US were able to participate in some of the AHC sessions.
Background -
In 2001 the UN General Assembly established the AHC. Membership was open to all Member States and observers to the UN, "for the purpose of elaborating a comprehensive and integral international Convention to protect and promote the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities".
In 2004, an Expert Working Group, established by the AHC, produced a report that has been used by subsequent meetings of the AHC to provide the basis for discussions on the content of the proposed Convention. Recent meetings of the AHC have consisted of formal and informal sessions that have considered the content of each Convention Article. The informal sessions consisted of comments by governmental delegations on the Working Group text. The formal sessions enabled NGOs to comment on the Article being considered. The Chairman of AHC then summed up the discussions.
Most of the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) present at the AHC meetings represent disabled people and are members of the IDC (membership currently about 50). The IDC prepared its own drafts of convention Articles and information sheets which were used to lobby States' delegations. Most of this work was done via an e-mail discussion page between meetings of the AHC. However, Working Groups on specific Articles were convened whilst the AHC was in session to finalise the IDC text of draft Articles and information/lobbying sheets. At this meeting of the AHC, the final batch of articles - 15 to 24 were discussed.
Prior to the AHC meeting we identified the key issues for WBU, derived from the WBU Convention manifesto. During the first week the two key issues for WBU that were considered by the AHC were education and accessibility.
We found ourselves fighting on two flanks on education. A small but vociferous minority of the organisations that are part of IDC hold the view that all disabled people must participate in inclusive education. WBU supports the basic concept of inclusive education. WBU does however consider that people with a serious visual impairment should have the choice of education in our own groups and settings. This stance is taken because WBU knows from the experience of blind and partially sighted people all over the world that blind and partially sighted people who attend community schools often do not receive the special support they need to obtain a quality education with a balanced curriculum. Teachers often are not able to teach braille and braille books are frequently not available. Blind and partially sighted students can also experience social isolation and difficulties in participating in a comprehensive range of school activities. WBU believes that a quality education is an essential requirement if blind and partially sighted people are to lead fully inclusive lives in the community.
Organisations on the IDC representing deaf and deafblind people share WBU's view on the vital importance of choice of educational groups and settings. So, WBU and our allies had to defend this position within the IDC as well as persuade State delegations of the need for choice in education. It seems that we were reasonably successful. The report of the 6th session of the AHC refers to the specific educational needs of blind, deaf and deafblind people. However, proponents of a fully inclusive educational philosophy will continue their campaigning and the WBU and its allies will need to continue to vigorously advocate for a choice in educational settings and groups for people with sensory impairments.
The second important issue we set out to address during the first week of The AHC was copyright. WBU considers that the Convention should stipulate that published information can be transcribed into braille, large print or audio script on a not-for-profit basis without infringing copyright. Additionally, WBU wishes to see the Convention supporting the free flow of accessible material between different countries' jurisdictions. A third copyright issue to be addressed by the Convention is the legitimate access by people with print related disabilities to material that technological protection measures might otherwise withhold.
This was one part of a long and complex draft Article crafted by IDC to influence the discussion by State delegations on a wide range of accessibility issues. These included access to housing, transport and the built environment.
Despite our efforts, the AHC report on accessibility takes little account of the views of IDC on access. No mention is made here of copyright issues. However, the report of this AHC meeting refers to copyright in a subsequent Article. It is proposed that States will ensure that laws protecting intellectual property rights do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory barrier to access by persons with disabilities to cultural materials, while respecting the provisions of international law. This is clearly a reference that we can attempt to build on.
The third key issue for WBU at this AHC meeting was supported employment. The Article on employment was considered during the second week. It was vital to try to ensure that the article on employment contained the essential elements that would be required to constitute effective supported employment schemes in any country. WBU considers this to be important because many blind and partially sighted people have additional disabilities that make it difficult or impossible to find or keep a job in the open labour market without support. Provision therefore has to be made, perhaps in the form of wage subsidies, special equipment or personal assistance. Whilst the report of the AHC meeting contains some provisions that would be helpful in this aspect of employment, it is not sufficiently robust to meet the needs of blind and partially sighted people with additional disabilities who seek work. Further campaigning is therefore needed by WBU and its IDC partners.
Next Steps -
At the end of the 6th AHC meeting, the Chairman announced that he would be preparing a 'Chairman's text' of a draft Convention for circulation in eight to ten weeks. This will be considered in detail at a three-week meeting of the AHC in January 2006. There will subsequently be a 'technical' meeting, then the 8th and possibly final AHC meeting in August 2006. It is anticipated that the text of the Convention will then be finalised prior to its submission to the UN General Assembly.
When the 'Chairman's text' is released, WBU will be scrutinising the document to identify those issues that need to be addressed at the AHC meeting in January. WBU will also be working closely with the IDC to prepare a joint position on all the Articles in the text. The January meeting of the AHC is clearly going to be a crucial meeting for WBU and for other NGOs that constitute the IDC. Although the provision of a Convention to protect the rights of disabled people is now in sight, we have a lot of work to do in the next few months if we are to have a Convention that will improve the lives of blind and partially sighted people in the future.
Back to contents