(en) Canada, LinchPin #16 - a publication of common cause* - Review: Disability Politics and Theory by KARINE WEHLM

Disability Politics & Theory by AJ Withers: Fernwood Publishing. "(D)isability falls
somewhere in a constellation. Like the constellation in the sky, disability is in constant
flux and appears different depending on the positioning of the
onlooker."(p.99) ---- Disability Politics and Theory is an excellent new book that
critically examines the key models of disability that have shaped how disability and
disabled people have been viewed in North America throughout the capitalist era and to
this current day. ---- The book?s author, AJ Withers applies an intersectional and
anti-capitalist analysis on these models and suggests an alternative model, the radical
model of disability, as a analytical tool to move the disabled people?s movement forward.
Withers? arguments stem from an understanding that multiple oppressions are intertwined
with one another and cannot be dealt with separately.

The author also argues that capitalism is
inherently problematic since, among other
things, it assigns individual self-worth and
value based on whether one can work for a
wage (and so produce profits for someone
else). Withers ends with a call for both non-
disabled people?s movements and the disabled
people?s movement to organize inclusively
for social justice and radical access.

The book begins by explaining the
Eugenic model, the Medical model and the
Charity model ? all of which individualize
disability and emphasize the necessity to
cure, reduce or eliminate disability, rather
than focusing efforts on improving disabled
people?s conditions by reducing barriers and
giving them power back over their lives.
These models all stem from the belief that
the problems posed by disability are inherent
to disabled individuals themselves, rather
than products of the negative reaction of
society to human diversity. Withers goes on
to explain how these models are still widely
applied today: the Medical model still being
the dominant mainstream model for dealing
with disability and the Eugenic model still
operating, for example, in the field of
genetic research on reproduction.

The author goes on to explain
the importance of the Disability Rights
movement model and the Social model,
while maintaining a critical analysis of
both. The Disability Rights movement
views disabled people as a minority. This
movement fights to end discrimination
towards disabled people and to help them
become accepted in the current society; the
Social model, on the other hand, demands
a change in society itself. This model
heralded an important shift in thinking
about disability and was a response to
the individualization of disability posed
by the earlier models. The Social model
separates impairment, which is part of an
individual?s characteristics, from disability,
which is ??the oppression that people with
impairment face?? (p. 86.). For example,
for a person using a wheelchair to move
around town, their impairment could be
the fact that their legs are paralysed while
their disability could be their inability to
access a building because of stairs. In the
Social model, a person is only disabled
if the environment and society is not
accessible or adapted to their needs. It is
the environment and society that needs
to change and not the person with the
impairment. Disability is therefore a social
construct and not inherent to the disabled
person.

Withers finishes by explaining an
alternative model, the Radical model of
disability, which tries to address both the
oppression of disabled people and disabled
minds and bodies while intersecting with
other forms of oppression. By choosing
to speak in terms of minds and bodies, the
author means who and what we are: we
are physical, mental, intellectual, sensory
bodies and minds. We have different ages,
life experiences, cultures, languages,
skin colours, genders, sexuality and class
backgrounds. The radical model rejects
the binary of impairment and disability
in the Social model and sees impairment
as also a social construct, because of the
fact that impairment too has different
meanings depending on the society we live
in. To take the same example as before, a
person unable to use their legs would be in
an entirely different situation if we lived
in an environment where there were no
stairs. In this case, the meaning assigned
to this particular physical fact would be
something different. Withers chooses to
talk about minds and bodies as a much
more inclusive and non-oppressive way
of discussing our difficulties, because we
all have our challenges, disabled and non-
disabled people alike. Using the words
minds and bodies is an attempt to move
away from categorical labels and towards
a terminology that includes us all.

Withers also proposes an
alternative to universal accessibility.
Although universal accessibility is
already much more inclusive than just
adding a ramp to a building, because it
tries to address in a comprehensive way
all accessibility needs relating to the
physical environment, it only addresses
the physical aspect of the environment.
Radical access, instead, articulates
a broad accessibility analysis that is
inclusive of other oppressions, such as
the inability to afford a ride on the bus
? even though it can be accessed using a
wheelchair.

One thing that caught my
attention in this book is how Withers
dismantles the myth of independence.
Being independent means that
someone can do a task by themselves,
without needing the help of anyone.
Withers instead argues that we are all
interdependent ? after all, very few
of us make our own clothes or grow
our own food. It is simply that certain
dependencies have been normalized,
while others have been marginalized.
I would also add that we should aim at
being autonomous rather than this ideal
of being independent, which means being
able to make our own choices in our
lives. This includes choosing to have help
or not. Very few people can say they are
truly autonomous because of the way our
society grants control and power to a few.
Only real social change, including the
abolishment of capitalism, hierarchy and
the fight against all forms of oppression
will make this possible for everyone.

Disability Politics and Theory is
an easy-to-read book giving a thorough
analysis of the key concepts and models
of disability. It is an eye-opener on
disability and it should be read by
anybody seeking to move this society
towards social justice. This book is
urging us to fight to create the changes
we want, because they won?t be handed
to us. ??We must work in solidarity with
other marginalized groups, and we must
get past our differences and fight for
justice, dignity, equality and access.??
(p.120)
=================================
* Anarchist organization

Bron : a-infos-en@ainfos.ca

Peru: Disability Rights in the Voting Booth

• 
  
  Using sign language, Monica, a deafblind woman, expresses her opinion on her right to political participation. She is a member of SENSE International Peru, an NGO working with deafblind people and their families.
  © 2011 Human Rights Watch

RELATED MATERIALS: 

Peru: Voting Rights Victory for People With Disabilities

Vote for an End to Discrimination

• 
  Peru: Disability Rights in the Voting Booth

Peruvians with disabilities are no-less citizens than anyone else. Everyone is equally entitled to vote and participate in society – and the law and government policy should see to it that they have the support they need and that no one is arbitrarily and unjustifiably excluded.

Shantha Rau Barriga, disability rights researcher and advocate

Remove Legal and Policy Barriers to Political and Civic Participation

(Lima) – Peru should remove significant barriers preventing people with disabilities from exercising their right to vote and other civil rights, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The failure to dismantle the obstacles is undermining Peru’s leadership as one of the first countries to ratify, in 2008, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The 89-page report, “‘I Want to be a Citizen Just Like Any Other’: Barriers to Political Participation for People with Disabilities in Peru,” documents the legacy of a policy, changed only in October 2011, that arbitrarily denied people with sensory, intellectual, and psychosocial disabilities their right to vote, considering them legally incompetent to exercise such a decision. Human Rights Watch also examined the barriers that people with these and other disabilities face when exercising their political rights, including the difficulty of getting identity documents essential for voting, and the absence of support mechanisms to help people with disabilities make voting decisions.

“Peruvians with disabilities are no-less citizens than anyone else,” said Shantha Rau Barriga, disability rights researcher and advocate at Human Rights Watch. “Everyone is equally entitled to vote and participate in society – and the law and government policy should see to it that they have the support they need and that no one is arbitrarily and unjustifiably excluded.”

The report is based on interviews with more than 100 people with disabilities and their families, as well as with Peruvian government officials and disability advocates.



The report examines how the country’s system of judicial interdiction – which places people under guardianship – and public records that officially identify people as “mentally disabled” create obstacles in practically all spheres of life. Such policies can: prevent people from opening a bank account, getting a job, owning or inheriting property, getting married, or signing official documents on behalf of their children.

Under the system of interdiction, Peru’s civil code allows a judge to declare a person with certain intellectual or mental disabilities incompetent to take care of his or her self and property and to impose another person as guardian to act on the person’s behalf. The process effectively suspends the civil rights of the person placed under guardianship, Human Rights Watch said.

However, Article 12 of the Disability Rights Convention states that people with disabilities should “enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life.” The committee that monitors the Disability Rights Convention has called on the Peruvian government to “abolish the practice of judicial interdiction.”

“I have the right to vote; I have the right to work,” said Maria Alejandra Villanueva, a leader of the Peruvian Association of People with Down Syndrome. “It’s not someone else’s decision.”

The Organization of American States’ (OAS) Committee for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities has called on states parties, including Peru, to ensure the recognition of everyone’s legal capacity, including people with disabilities, for example by replacing interdiction and related practices with supported decision-making.

Peru has no system in place to support people with disabilities in making their own decisions. In the absence of such a mechanism, Human Rights Watch found that family members of people with disabilities had sought guardianship because they perceived it to be the only way under Peruvian law to protect their property or legal interests, including their right to a pension or social security benefits.

People with disabilities in Peru may also face physical and other barriers when they seek to exercise their right to vote. Peru’s election law requires officials to provide accessible voting facilities. However, the government has a mixed record in this regard, Human Rights Watch found. People with physical disabilities and election monitors told Human Rights Watch that many polling places were inaccessible.

Silvia, a woman with a physical disability in Puno, told Human Rights Watch, “The polling stations are not prepared for people with disabilities, or even people who had an accident a few days earlier,” she said. “They are on the second and third floor. They are not accessible for someone in a wheelchair.”

Human Rights Watch also received reports that braille ballots, which must be provided by law, were not available in some polling places during the 2010-2011 municipal and presidential elections. Some people with disabilities who had asked for assistance in voting were not able to get help, they told Human Rights Watch.

People with psychosocial and intellectual disabilities face additional barriers and challenges in voting, Human Rights Watch found. The government has produced no election materials to facilitate their participation. And government officials, civil society organizations, and citizens who administer or monitor elections have little guidance on how to ensure that these voters can reach the polls and cast their vote.

“The government needs to make sure that election staff are able to support the right of people with disabilities to vote,” said Barriga. “Otherwise, the voices of thousands of Peruvians will continue to be excluded from the political process.”

To meet Peru’s obligations under international law, Congress should act promptly to pass new legislation to ensure compliance with the Disability Rights Convention, Human Rights Watch said. The government should also take swift steps to guarantee that all people with disabilities have equal legal capacity, including by amending the civil code and restoring civil rights to those under guardianship.

In addition, Peruvian government ministries and agencies should systematically work with people with disabilities and organizations that represent people with disabilities to develop new approaches to supported decision-making and the implementation of legal reforms, Human Rights Watch said.

Over the past decade, the Peruvian authorities systematically excluded over 23,000 people with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities from the voter registry, Human Rights Watch said. The people were excluded either because they were unable to obtain a national identity card, which is required for voting, or because they were issued identity cards that designated them “mentally disabled” and thus not entitled to vote or make other legal, financial, and even personal decisions.

In October 2011, after years of pressure from disability organizationsand intervention by the ombudsman’s office, the National Registry for Identification and Civil Status (RENIEC), one of the government agencies responsible for elections, issued a resolution to nullify this policy and pledged to work with relevant government agencies to address this situation promptly.

International civil society, donors, and United Nations agencies active in the area of good governance, civic engagement, and democracy building in Peru should include people with disabilities as part of their analysis or as a focus of their work. Human Rights Watch said.

“The government has declared its intentions to give people with disabilities their full rights,” Barriga said. “Now it needs to follow through so that Peruvians with disabilities can exercise their citizenship rights just like everyone else.” 

Bron : Human Rights Watch