Hundreds of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) marched to Mendiola Bridge Friday to demand that the Arroyo government exhort all efforts to reunite more than 300 stranded OFWs with their families this Christmas season. “Today marks the ninth year of the United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers and Their Families. While President Arroyo signed this convention, in reality, the plight of Filipino migrant workers did not improve and in fact worsened under the government’s relentless labor export program. Nine years under the Arroyo regime saw the unprecedented rise in human rights violations of OFWs,” said Garry Martinez, Migrante International chairperson.

Migrante International’s records show that in almost all of the cases of stranded OFWs, Philippine consulate and overseas labor officials neglected the plight of OFWs, and were even the ones defending abusive employers and companies.

Read more at Radio 1812

Having just returned from the 2009 Un-Convention in Salford (Greater Manchester) the birthplace of this little music conference that won’t stay little forever, I would be remiss if I didn’t say: try to time your tours around the Un-Convention. It is the voice for independents largely ignored in this part of the world outside of London.

For a start, you’ll get sage advice like this from people like Martin Atkins who wrote the book to have on touring: Tour Smart. It’s not for the faint of heart, if rough language scares you, but the author is sassy and straight on the mark in his first reminder to take care when planning a tour. Check out this video of Atkins, shot by Andrew Dubber, author and expert of New Music Strategies:

The man knows. Look up his credits. Now, back to the subject at hand…

Money for value, the Un-Convention – as a music conference and gathering point for working artists and independent labels – is the best thing going in the UK. Early bird prices were less than £30 this year. Get your tickets and get on site early enough to introduce yourself to the others who come from all over. It is vital to make friendships, not just hand out flyers or business cards. And on that note, a lot of people don’t do business cards over here. I don’t know why. Lack of money or professionalism might be two reasons. Certainly a sickening amount of flyers paper the streets, as ‘fly-posting’ or postering in many places is ILLEGAL, so it’s not about saving trees. You’ll stand out having a business card at the Un-Convention. Have a pen and a book to capture people’s contact details for those who don’t have a card. But get there early enough to spend time asking questions and, yep, listening. You’ll learn a lot as you figure out who might have something valuable to share with you by way of tips, resources, great venues to check out, distribution channels in this part of the world.

A side note: one promoter said something interesting yesterday that perked up my ears. “I don’t know what it is about Canadians. They have great websites, beautiful websites. But you can’t find their music!” He was speaking about the necessity of having a MySpace page. It’s essential in the UK. It is industry standard, and often it is the only webpage that artists have and promoters will look at.

Another thing to note: if you have a record label in the UK, and you’re going to be going at it hard here, there is a LOT of controversy around joining the PPL, an organization created for the purposes of collecting label royalties for performances – and I am no expert in this. But it was made clear to me upon further questioning that in the UK, if you run a record label, you can (without giving up your relationship to your own performing rights society ASCAP/BMI/SOCAN/etc.), collect further income that both the US and Canada don’t collect for and don’t talk about. Canada apparently collects one portion of the moneys I’m vaguely alluding to here, and that’s good enough for me to look further into this; the US organizations are not established to collect two-thirds of the pie. Therefore, there may be merit if you’re over here to look at what arrangements with the PPL can benefit you as a foreign artist living or touring regularly in the UK. However, tread with caution, as here’s where the debate raged deeply with the indies here who have said that they don’t receive what’s owed to them, due to faulty tracking systems, which is a raging debate worldwide with these societies; yet a number of the artists confessed they haven’t been organized enough to go after what is their ‘due’, I noticed. If I had not come to Un-Convention this year, I would never have had at least the vaguest notion of this aspect of the music industry infrastructure, and if you’re serious about gigging and touring at the international level, then it’s worth getting informed. In getting informed about PPL and another organization up for debate, the PRS (which seems to be a substitute for your own performing rights organization, so I won’t be changing over unless I immigrate here), there will be much fine print to sort through and, again, the point was driven home: being independent is no excuse for being ignorant. Certainly, this session within the Un-Convention really attempted to shed some light on confusing matters that matter to independent artists.

Now, I won’t pretend that the Un-Convention caters to the roots-folk market (which seems to drive more of the popular North American ’sound’ than in Europe). But it’s not that it doesn’t. It will expand more in this direction, I am certain, as attenders continue to give more input and as the volunteer base grows to get the word out to the more folk-based artists/labels in the UK not yet in attendance here. It is still a conference run by a small group of people with limited energy and resources to reach out to broader audiences, so if you’re folk-roots based, you might feel like you’re not quite in the right place. Look past the hair-do’s and first impressions, and listen to the music between panel sessions, and you’ll discover that even if an act is promoted in certain edgy alternative emo indie contexts, what you’ll hear when you shove past all the written hype…is the singer-songwriter. As one American friend I know has said about the raging Americana that is popular over here, in the end, it’s often just…yep…folk music.

Indeed, there were a few singer-songwriters mixed in with the bands at Un-Convention, and this year the artists were invited to play a central role in the conference by actually speaking on the first panel. An observation I made was that some of the artists, particularly those with management and working hard to fast-track their own careers forward, might appear to have  little time to talk to you – as everybody is jostling, whether they admit it or not, for that one connection that can help them further expose their music and get them to the next working level. But they might be willing if you catch them in quiet moments somewhere between a brew (tea!) or a beer. You have to be bold and up-front, and like anywhere, read the signals of the people you meet. Consider it an opportunity to find out how singer-songwriters in the UK go about marketing themselves to various audiences: the festivals, the urban venues, the college crowds. It’s an interesting study. I haven’t met one person yet who targets the traditional folk clubs that aren’t actually all ‘trad’. So, again, this is a good place to explore the alternative to that.

Finally, attend the after parties, of course, and most especially the convention wrap-up, which is a celebration of artists and labels. Running around with only a business card and a one-line no-time-waster of a request, “I’m just introducing my label and my music to people tonight” met with a favorable response from literally everyone in the room, even though the bands on stage were true blue British punk rock bands and a fascinating study in the level of output visually that may be required in England to reach stardom. I was amazed to come across a Manchester Evening News music writer who, it turned out, had attended my band’s gig at In the City music conference that happens in this city every October (read: major label driven and, uh, can I be candid? – bordering on boring as hell and full of super snotty people, unlike Liverpool’s new music conference Sound City or the nearby, massive, terrific and overwhelming Midem held in Cannes, France, the conference to go to if you’ve got serious money and want to connect with some internationally focused ‘tradesters’, big and small, in the UK industry from outside of the UK industry). Attending the closing night party and meeting up with this journalist who had nothing but good to say about the set, and notably she commented on how tired she was of ‘indie’ rock bands that all sound the same (and now you know what mainstream UK media is largely focused on), for me, it was yet another highlight from participating in the entire experience of Un-Convention. Be yourself and be there. You never, ever know who you might meet. Several promoters and the media are all in attendance, dressed as civilians!

So, Tip No. 4 is: Coordinate your tours around the Un-Convention.

You’ll meet people from all facets of the UK music industry, and most importantly you’ll hear from independents on the ground what their working experiences are like.It’s an outstanding opportunity to get ideas for getting “400 bums in seats” as one young music manager said to me, working the university crowd like I’ve not seen yet in this country. Good for him. You’ll be able to see the degree of shyness and swagger that co-exist in this world, and it’ll take some of the mystique quickly out of being a foreign artist here. Dive in. And bear one last thing in mind: if there was one universal message repeated time and again here at Un-Convention, it is to play, play, play and build your audience one fan at a time.

: : : : : : : : : :

Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 

Article VI, Clause 3 says:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. 

There are those on the right who insist that the US should never be bound by International Treaty, but they would be wrong. When we sign a treaty and ratify it in our Senate, it becomes “the supreme Law of the Land.” To fail to follow it would be to fail to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment makes it a crime to torture people or to treat prisoners cruelly or inhumanely. The United States signed this treaty on April 18, 1988. The United States finally got around to ratifying this treaty on October 21, 1994. This means that this treaty was the Law of the Land on January 20, 2001, when the Bush Administration came into office.

On August 6, 2002, former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee (now a federal judge), in response to a request from the CIA, signed his name to a memo giving legal cover to the CIA to use a list of interrogation techniques which included waterboarding. The memo clearly states that the opinion is based on the facts as given him by the CIA, and that if those facts should change, the applicability of the memo could change. The memo also gives guidelines for how much of these techniques they could legally use. It appears that even though Bybee told them that a little waterboarding was legal (he was wrong), the CIA exceeded even those guidelines. Another argument used to justify the techniques was that they were used on military personnel undergoing S.E.R.E. Training. The argument goes that if it’s legal to do it to our own people, it should be legal to do with people in our custody. This argument is wrong because it ignores the fact that the techniques chosen for the S.E.R.E. training were chosen specifically because they were illegal! They were legal to use in training because undergoing them was voluntary. The entire point of subjecting people to them was to prepare them for what might happen if they were captured by an enemy that did not follow the law. How anyone could twist this into a logical argument for saying these techniques are legal to use on people in our custody escapes me.

Believe it or not, despite all the dialog about the subject of waterboarding, about how it is, in the words of one conservative radio talk host, “absolutely torture”; about how it was devised for the purpose of getting people to give false confessions; about how it doesn’t work if you want to gain worthwhile intelligence (because the person being waterboarded would say anything they thought you wanted to hear to make it stop, as Mancow admitted); and about how illegal it is, there are still people on the right who think it is justified in certain circumstances. Their primary justification for waterboarding (or using any other form of torture) is the “ticking time bomb scenario” (also called the “Jack Bauer Scenario” after the main character in a fictional TV show called “24”, in which Bauer often tortures people to get information to stop a bomb or terrorist attack from going off. It should be emphasized that this show is a work of fiction. Real life often doesn’t work the way it does on the TV machine.) This justification, however, could not possibly be applied in this situation because there was no ticking time bomb! It was only assumed, without any reliable basis, that another attack was imminent and that, therefore, waterboarding could be justified in order to stop that attack. Yet even with Bybee’s memo as legal cover, they waterboarded Zubaydah 83 times in one month. A month of waterboarding and no attacks from al Qaeda happened. If an attack was really “imminent”, wouldn’t it have happened within that month? Since it never happened, nor did one happen during the month they waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammad, how could one argue that an attack was imminent? Since it is not true that we knew an attack was imminent (we only assumed it to be the case), the primary justification for using the waterboard falls apart. The treaty we signed stated quite clearly “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” Legal precedent makes it clear that waterboarding is torture.

But even if you want to bury your head in the sand or put your fingers in your years and say “la-la-la-la-la-la” when someone tries to say waterboarding is torture, you cannot deny that it is cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Bybee’s memo answered the wrong question. As he indicated, he was responding to whether or not the techniques the CIA wanted to use (the techniques we’ve all come to know as the “Enhanced interrogation techniques”) were a violation “the prohibition of torture found at Section 2340A of title 18 of the United States Code.” This section only addresses the subject of “torture” and does not reference “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” Bybee should have done his homework and looked into whether or not the CIA’s proposed actions violated Section 2441 of Title 18 of the US Code, which covers War Crimes. It was, IMHO, poor counseling to tell them that because it did not violate one specific statute, that it was legal. The treaty we signed also bans the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners (or anyone in custody.) And performing those acts in the commission of a war constitutes War Crimes.

While we don’t know exactly what did happen (thanks to all the people who have been lying on behalf of the Bush Administration), we do know enough to be certain that War Crimes were committed, and that they were committed on authorization coming from the White House. We have to prosecute those involved with this, even if they later claim they only signed documents that others wrote. A signature has legal meaning. It is proof of awareness of the details of the item being signed. They cannot claim ignorance. They were all knowing participants in the commission of War Crimes. They belong in prison.

: : : : : : : : : :

Last year I had the pleasure of chatting at the first Un-convention – held in Salford – and, unable to wait 12 months, seven months later they’re holding another one.

It may be the first one I’m not speaking at (I spoke at the Belfast event earlier this year), but I’m hoping to get up there next week.

It’s a great event, organised by great people with their hearts and minds in the right place and isn’t filled with the posteuring of most industry events.

You can get a taster of last year’s event by watching this video. You can also see me in the vid, and by awful posteur is due to being on crutches, although they seem to have been cut out…

Here’s the blurb and follow the link for discounted tickets:

Un-Convention 2009 is a not for profit grassroots led music conference for DIY and Independent music makers and companies. Born in Manchester in 2008 as an alternative to the more mainstream In The City event, it has already inspired Un-Conventions in Belfast and Swansea and future events in Glasgow, London, Barcelona and Reykjavík. This year’s UK national event in Salford will have a range of key musicians, bands and industry personnel in attendance.

This year’s panellists include Marin Elbourne (Glastonbury), Crispin Parry (British Underground), Andrew Dubber (New Music Strategies), Al Farquhar (Modern Art Management), Peter Hook (New Order), Liam Frost, Ashley Beedle (X-Press2), Jo Good (XFM/MTV), Simon Aldridge (BMI) and John Robb – plus many, many more (see attached).

In addition to panels and workshops Un-Convention presents the best new live talent, across genres, from all over the country. Un-Convention is not an industry showcase – more a celebration of talent below the mass media radar. Artists will perform during daytime acoustic sessions and over three nights of gigs.

Un-Convention 2009 bands include: I Am Kloot, Everything Everything, Kyte, The Loose Salute, Magic Arm, Kasms, Arthur Delaney, Gallops, Sisters of Transistors, The Tombots, Arch Nazards, Fangs, Jamie Finlay, Withered Hand, Louis Barabbas and the Bedlam 6, John Smith, Jake Flowers, Jesca Hoop + Lil’Fee (The Whip) DJ Set.

There will also be bbq’s in the graveyard on Friday and Saturday served by Wild At Heart.

Tickets from £7.50. To book tickets visit: http://unconvention3.eventbrite.com/ and enter UNCON019283, valid until Friday 29th May, 2009.

Published on Saturday, March 28, 2009 by the Guardian/UK

Legal moves may force Obama’s government into starting a new inquiry into abuses at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib

by Julian Borger and Dale Fuchs

MADRID – Criminal proceedings have begun in Spain against six senior officials in the Bush administration for the use of torture against detainees in Guantánamo Bay. Baltasar Garzón, the counter-terrorism judge whose prosecution of General Augusto Pinochet led to his arrest in Britain in 1998, has referred the case to the chief prosecutor before deciding whether to proceed.

 

A Spanish court has agreed to consider opening a criminal case against six former Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, seen in this photo from Aug. 28, 2007, over allegations they gave legal cover for torture at Guantanamo Bay, a lawyer in the case said. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

The case is bound to threaten Spain’s relations with the new administration in Washington, but Gonzalo Boyé, one of the four lawyers who wrote the lawsuit, said the prosecutor would have little choice under Spanish law but to approve the prosecution. 

“The only route of escape the prosecutor might have is to ask whether there is ongoing process in the US against these people,” Boyé told the Observer. “This case will go ahead. It will be against the law not to go ahead.”

The officials named in the case include the most senior legal minds in the Bush administration. They are: Alberto Gonzales, a former White House counsel and attorney general; David Addington, former vice-president Dick Cheney’s chief of staff; Douglas Feith, who was under-secretary of defence; William Haynes, formerly the Pentagon’s general counsel; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who were both senior justice department legal advisers.

Court documents say that, without their legal advice in a series of internal administration memos, “it would have been impossible to structure a legal framework that supported what happened [in Guantánamo]“.

Boyé predicted that Garzón would issue subpoenas in the next two weeks, summoning the six former officials to present evidence: “If I were them, I would search for a good lawyer.”

If Garzón decided to go further and issued arrest warrants against the six, it would mean they would risk detention and extradition if they travelled outside the US. It would also present President Barack Obama with a serious dilemma. He would have either to open proceedings against the accused or tackle an extradition request from Spain.

Obama administration officials have confirmed that they believe torture was committed by American interrogators. The president has not ruled out a criminal inquiry, but has signalled he is reluctant to do so for political reasons.

“Obviously we’re going to be looking at past practices, and I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” Obama said in January. “But my orientation’s going to be to move forward.”

Philippe Sands, whose book Torture Team first made the case against the Bush lawyers and which Boyé said was instrumental in formulating the Spanish case, said yesterday: “What this does is force the Obama administration to come to terms with the fact that torture has happened and to decide, sooner rather than later, whether it is going to criminally investigate. If it decides not to investigate, then inevitably the Garzón investigation, and no doubt many others, will be given the green light.”

Germany’s federal prosecutor was asked in November 2006 to pursue a case against Donald Rumsfeld, the former defence secretary, Gonzales and other officials for abuses committed in Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But the prosecutor declined on the grounds that the issue should be investigated in the US.

Legal observers say the Spanish lawsuit has a better chance of ending in charges. The high court, on which Garzón sits, has more leeway than the German prosecutor to seek “universal jurisdiction”.

The lawsuit also points to a direct link with Spain, as six Spaniards were held at Guantánamo and are argued to have suffered directly from the Bush administration’s departure from international law. Unlike the German lawsuit, the Spanish case is aimed at second-tier figures, advisers to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, with the aim of being less politically explosive.

The lawsuit claimed the six former aides “participated actively and decisively in the creation, approval and execution of a judicial framework that allowed for the deprivation of fundamental rights of a large number of prisoners, the implementation of new interrogation techniques including torture, the legal cover for the treatment of those prisoners, the protection of the people who participated in illegal tortures and, above all, the establishment of impunity for all the government workers, military personnel, doctors and others who participated in the detention centre at Guantánamo”.

“All the accused are members of what they themselves called the ‘war council’,” court documents allege. “This group met almost weekly either in Gonzales’s or Haynes’s offices.”

In a now notorious legal opinion signed in August 2002, Yoo and Bybee argued that torture occurred only when pain was inflicted “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death”.

Another key document cited in the Spanish case is a November 2002 “action memo” written by Haynes, in which he recommends that Rumsfeld give “blanket approval” to 15 forms of aggressive interrogation, including stress positions, isolation, hooding, 20-hour interrogations and nudity. Rumsfeld approved the document.

The 1984 UN Convention against Torture, signed and ratified by the US, requires states to investigate allegations of torture committed on their territory or by their nationals, or extradite them to stand trial elsewhere.

Last week, Britain’s attorney general, Lady Scotland, launched a criminal investigation into MI5 complicity in the torture of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident held in Guantánamo.

The Obama administration has so far avoided taking similar steps. But the possibility of US prosecutions was brought closer by a report by the Senate armed services committee at the end of last year, which found: “The abuse of detainees in US custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of ‘a few bad apples’ acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorised their use against detainees.”

None of the six former officials could be reached for comment yesterday. Meanwhile, Vijay Padmanabhan, a former state department lawyer, said the creation of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp was “one of the worst over-reactions of the Bush administration”.

© 2009 guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

Last Tuesday, Venezuela’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Jorge Valero, signed an important piece of human rights legislation: the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

“Enforced disappearance” refers to “the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State.”

It is a crime that is commonly associated with the “dirty wars” in South America’s Southern Cone in the 1970s and 80s, and that has been brought to the world’s attention by groups such as Argentina’s Madres de la Plaza de Mayo.

Now, Venezuela has joined 78 other countries around the world that vow to prevent disappearance and prosecute cases.

Venezuela ratified the OAS Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance a decade ago. This new convention is yet another commitment made by the Chavez government to ensuring respect for human rights and civil protections.

Read news in Spanish here or check out the full text of the convention in English here. Find out more about Venezuela’s Permanent Mission to the UN here.

Seale (2006) suggests that the introduction of standards, guidelines and legislation has not led to a significant improvement in accessibility. I would disagree. Yes, there is no doubt that there is a long way to go and progress is slow – but to say that there has been no significant improvement – I think is unfair. 45,000 public bodies across Great Britain are covered by the Disability Equality Duty.

In the UK, the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) in 1995, made it unlawful to discriminate against disabled people as employees, as students, and as consumers of goods and services. The author of the JISC TechDis Accessibility Legislation section expresses the view that some of the terms used are ‘fluffy’ or imprecise. Problems are caused by this imprecision. The DDA states employers, education establishments, and providers of goods and services need to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to avoid discriminating against disabled people. Many ask what exactly ‘reasonable’ means and are confused about their responsibilities by law.Where ‘reasonable’, websites, software, buildings and other entities involved in employment, education or other services, need to be made accessible. As long as guidance is just that and not enforced – compliance will never be 100%.

The legislation does bring benefits. I think it benefits both teaching institutions in terms of guidance and support and funding available; but more so to disabled students. Teaching institutions can now receive guidance on all they need to know from improvements to physical environments like advice on lighting and paint schemes to help visually impaired students to making adjustments that help disabled students have better access to the curriculum. Disabled students’ allowances provide extra financial help if you have a disability or a specific earning difficulty like dyslexia. This is paid on top of the standard student package and does not have to be repaid. The allowance helps with specialist equipment, helpers, extra travel costs and other costs like tapes or Braille paper.

The DDA gives disabled people important rights of access to every day services and many local councils, doctors’ surgeries, hotels, banks, pubs, post offices, theatres, hairdressers, schools etc have access by installing ramps and widening doorways for wheelchair users. When I visit a bank now, there is always an induction loop for people who are hearing impaired. Awareness has improved and many are aware of the requirements to improve accessibility on the web. Many services are now available by email and phone and in many companies disabled awareness training is run.

Since December 2006, there has been a legal duty on all public sector organisations to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. People who work in the public sector have to consider the impact of their work on disabled people and take action to tackle disability inequality. Significant public authorities have had to publish a ‘Disability Equality Scheme’.

The UK has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but has signalled it will do so by the end of 2008. It was one of the first to sign the treaty. The UK has expressed reservations to parts of the Convention, for example, the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), have asked for reservations to be attached to the ratification. Where the Convention says that children with disabilities should be included within “the general education system”, the DCSF wants to make a declaration about how it interprets the word “general”. It should not be taken to mean “mainstream”, says the ministry, but simply the existing range of provision, retaining separate special schools. And where the Convention talks about inclusion in the local community, the DCSF wants to issue a reservation that will enable it to carry on providing “specialist provision, which may be some way from [the children’s] home”, i.e. residential schools.

Wong-Hernandez, L. (2001) identifies common factors for hindering progress:-

1. Accessibility awareness training and education is needed for everyone for both disabled and non-disabled people.
2. Compliance to legislation has to be enforced and monitored.
3. More resources and support is required.

I think the issues relating to disability and accessibility are similar from those arising with regard to other aspects of equality and human rights, such as racial discrimination. The similarities, I have identified are that both seek to promote equal opportunities; the use of appropriate language; eliminate discrimination; promote positive attitudes towards people; monitor services etc. There is a Disability Equality Scheme’ and similiarly there is a ‘Race Equality Scheme’. Both are concerned with training and development, grievances and disciplinaries etc. Both take steps to meet the needs of people and for everyone to have full participation in public life. The big difference for disablity rights is the requirement for access and the need for equipment. Knowledge, training and education is required so that everybody has disability in mind, when they design and implement anything. Would it not be great if no website could go live and be launched on the web without meeting accessibility requirements?

VIEW THE MAP Maritime jurisdiction and boundaries in the Arctic region [1.01MB] Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader Download the reader here

British scientists say they have drawn up the first detailed map to show areas in the Arctic that could become embroiled in future border disputes.

A team from Durham University compiled the outline of potential hotspots by basing the design on historical and ongoing arguments over ownership.

Russian scientists caused outrage last year when they planted their national flag on the seabed at the North Pole.

The UK researchers hope the map will inform politicians and policy makers.

“Its primary purpose is to inform discussions and debates because, frankly, there has been a lot of rubbish about who can claim (sovereignty) over what,” explained Martin Pratt, director of the university’s International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU).

“To be honest, most of the other maps that I have seen in the media have been very simple,” he added.

“We have attempted to show all known claims; agreed boundaries and one thing that has not appeared on any other maps, which is the number of areas that could be claimed by Canada, Denmark and the US.”

Energy security is driving interest, as is the fact that Arctic ice is melting more and more during the summer Martin Pratt, Durham University

The team used specialist software to construct the nations’ boundaries, and identify what areas could be the source of future disputes.

“All coastal states have rights over the resources up to 200 nautical miles from their coastline,” Mr Pratt said. “So, we used specialist geographical software to ‘buffer’ the claims out accurately.”

The researchers also took into account the fact that some nations were able to extend their claims to 350 nautical miles as a result of their landmasses extending into the sea.

Back on the agenda

The issue of defining national boundaries in the Arctic was brought into sharp relief last summer when a team of Russian explorers used their submarine to plant their country’s flag on the seabed at the North Pole.

A number of politicians from the nations with borders within the Arctic, including Canada’s foreign minister, saw it as Moscow furthering its claim to territory within the region.

Mr Pratt said a number of factors were driving territorial claims back on to the political agenda.

“Energy security is driving interest, as is the fact that Arctic ice is melting more and more during the summer,” he told BBC News. “This is allowing greater exploration of the Arctic seabed.”

Data released by the US Geological Survey last month showed that the frozen region contained an estimated 90 billion barrels of untapped oil.

Mr Pratt added that the nations surrounding the Arctic also only had a limited amount of time to outline their claims.

“If they don’t define it within the timeframe set out by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, then it becomes part of what is known as ‘The Area’, which is administered by the International Seabed Authority on behalf of humanity as a whole.”

A music conference aimed specifically at the grass roots of the industry, the goal of Un-convention is to bring together like minded individuals to discuss and shape the future of Independent music.

From DIY labels, and self releasing bands, to promoters and agents, entrepreneurs and innovators, Un-convention is looking to the future of music, and how it will develop and flourish in the technological age.

There’s more information about the who’s, where’s and why’s of Un-convention on the Un-convention site – www.unconvention.wordpress.com.

A major part of Un-convention is that it is an inclusive and interactive debate. To that end we have included a Discussion area on this site, so that anyone and everyone can ask questions, or answer them. This is central to the ethos of Un-convention. The music industry is changing dramatically, there are new problems, and new opportunities every day. We have to think differently about what we do, and why we do it. The solutions aren’t going to come from those in ivory towers, they will come from you.

So get involved. Start the debate. And join us at Un-convention.

Un-convention is taking place at the Sacred Trinity Church, Chapel Street, in Salford from the 5th until the 7th of October. To buy tickets click on the Register button below (we’ve kept it as cheap as possible!). There are full tickets which will get you into all of the events and music showcases (yes, there will be some top bands playing too), or you can buy tickets for just the conference (which will run during the day on Monday 6th and Tuesday 7th, and will include panel discussions, networking events and acoustic showcases), or just for individual music showcases. For the full line up of events and bands click here.

On 3 April, Ecuador became the 20th country to ratify the UN Convention on Persons With Disabilities which means that on 3 May, the convention comes into force globally.

Whilst the convention could be a powerful legal tool to change the lives of the 650 million disabled people worldwide – I wonder whether it will be? There is already so much legislation already failing to be implemented all over the developing world…

The convention has raised the profile of shocking human rights abuses suffered by disabled people (and deaf children!) all over the world – and it has forced governments to think about their responsibilities to ensure equal rights. But will it – actually lead to ACTION? Or will it simply be an opportunity for nice announcements and new unimplemented laws…?

To avoid this – holding governments to account and providing practical examples of what’s possible – is essential and that’s where civil society (like us) comes in! We work with movements of deaf children and their families and local organisations to make sure that rights become reality for deaf children…and we will keep working till we succeed!

I’d love to hear your thoughts about how we can make the rights in the UN Convention become real around the world. Another good place to look for stories/thoughts on the convention is the RatifyNow Blog Swarm

RatifyNow has reported that Ecuador became the 20th nation to ratify the international disability rights treaty, known as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), earlier today on April 3, 2008. It also became the 13th nation to ratify the accompanying Optional Protocol. Accordingly, both the CRPD and the Optional Protocol will enter into force 30 days from now. This means that countries ratifying the CRPD will now be obligated to obey it, as will countries ratifying the Optional Protocols.

RatifyNow has a story about the newest ratification; why this is a historic milestone for the international disability community; how countries and people with disabilities will be affected; how ordinary citizens like YOU can help push for more countries to ratify the CRPD and then implement it fully; and how you can become involved in the ratification movement at:

http://ratifynow.org/2008/04/03/ecuador-the-20th-country-ratifies-the-crpd-…-now-what/

Also, the United Nationas, the International Disability Alliance, and RatifyNow are all planning events to celebrate the CRPD entering into force in both New York City and Washington DC on May 12. 2008. Return to the RatifyNow.org web site for further details.

Also, read the official United Nations (UN) story, including a quote from the Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, at:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=26199&Cr=disab&Cr1=convention

We Can Do Copyright
This blog post is copyrighted to We Can Do (wecando.wordpress.com). Currently, only two web sites have on-going permission to syndicate (re-post) We Can Do blog posts in full: BlogAfrica.com and www.RatifyNow.org. Other sites are most likely plagiarizing this post without permission.

RatifyNow has now announced that Jordan ratified the international disabilities rights treaty, called the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) yesterday, March 31, 2008.

Regular We Can Do readers will know that the CRPD is the first international legally binding human rights instrument to protect people with disabilities. It protects the rights of people with disabilities to have access to education and health services; to be free from torture and other forms of abuse; to have the right to make their own choices about what medical treatment they will accept or refuse; the right to live in the community; and more.

As of this writing (April 1 … and, no, not April Fool’s), the United Nations Enable web site has not yet announced Jordan’s ratification. But contacts within the ratification movement were able to verify the news with the UN Secretariat.

The CRPD needs to be ratified by a total of 20 countries before it can become legally enforceable, then it will go into effect 30 days later. Jordan is the 18th country to ratify since the treaty was opened for countries to sign and ratify. The other 17 ratifying countries include Bangladesh, Croatia, Cuba, El Salvador, Gabon, Guinea, Hungary, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Namibia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, San Marino, South Africa, and Spain.

In addition to 18 ratifications, 126 countries have signed the CRPD. Signing an international treaty does not oblige a country to obey it. In order to be legally bound by a treaty, a country must ratify it. However, signing a treaty does send a signal that the country is interested in ratifying the treaty in the future. It also commits the country to avoiding any action that would violate the spirit of the treaty.

Keep watching this space for the next two ratifications, possibly within a week. Also watch for upcoming announcements on how RatifyNow plans to celebrate and promote the CRPD when it goes into effect 30 days after the 20th ratification.

Consult the RatifyNow FAQ to learn more about the CRPD, how it is meant to help people with disabilities, and how the ratification process works.



Subscribe to We Can Do
Learn how to receive an email alert when new material is posted at We Can Do (wecando.wordpress.com).

Other Resources at We Can Do
Catch up with the news; explore resources, toolkits, or funding and fellowship opportunities; find research, reports, papers, or statistics; or look up conferences, events, call for papers, or education/training opportunities.

Thought I’d post a little before I went to bed, I am SOoO tired!
Had a rather uneventful day except for when i tried to get into the shed and because of all the rain we’ve been having the door swelled and wouldn’t open, I ended up pulling the door handle off and landing right on my arse! I Did get into the shed in the end.. and sanded the door down a bit… I’ll try to open it tomorrow and keep you posted on the situation haha.

Secondly I’m sure alot of you who read this have heard about the family that are going to be ‘deported’ back to Nigeria as they have failed asylum a few times as I have gathered from news reports.
I was invited to a group on facebook which I didn’t except for a few days as i wasn’t to sure of what stance I had on the situation. I’m still not really sure but I joined anyway and read the comments on there group most were postive and spoke positively about the family but a minority argued the opinion of what some of us have but are afraid to speak up about.. the fact that we/our parents are paying taxes to fund these people living here…
some people in the group argued that the mother of the family could not get a job as she had been failed asylum but spent her spare time volunteering… I appreciate this and think it is a great thing to do! I don’t want the family to be deported as there are other things to consider such as “death threats from the father in nigeria” and one of the children has Sickle Cell Anemia.. this is a life threatening disease however the NHS stands for National Health Service, not international/worldwide health service…Is it really our problem?

The fact is that this family have been living here illegally and the children have been attending schools illegially…The law is the law no matter how shit it is (and it really is shit)!
If a murderer killed someone in your family, would you think it was okay if the judge and jury took into consideration that he had good grades and he had done volunteer work? No. A Murderer Is A Murderer. (I don’t belive murders can be compared to deportation but the example illustrates the law).

The various provisions of Article 1 of the UN Convention deal with the protection issues of asylum determination. Article 1A(2) of the Convention defines a refugee as:

‘A person who has a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and who is outside the country of his nationality or former habitual residence and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country or to return to it.’

According to the facebook group to help save this family the family have been recieving death threats from there father surely due to this they would have been granted asylum?

Grant of asylum
An asylum applicant will be granted asylum in the United Kingdom if the Secretary of State is satisfied that:

(i) he is in the United Kingdom or has arrived at a port of entry in the United
Kingdom;

(ii) he is a refugee, as defined in regulation 2 of The Refugee or Person in
Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006;

(iii) there are no reasonable grounds for regarding him as a danger to the
security of the United Kingdom;

(iv) he does not, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly
serious crime, he does not constitute danger to the community of the
United Kingdom; and

(v) refusing his application would result in him being required to go (whether
immediately or after the time limited by any existing leave to enter or
remain) in breach of the Geneva Convention, to a country in which his life or
freedom would threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality,
political opinion or membership of a particular social group

I’ve been babbling on I think, I don’t mean to its just that in my own mind I can’t work out what to think, I know that I don’t want them to be deported because it seems a great shame to lose people that could really make a diffrence to our country but at the same time , we are paying the taxes for them to live here illegially, the law is here for a reason.

I’m gona leave it at that until I can think of more to say about the situation that is understandable but I just want to say to the people that are fighting for this families freedom your brilliant and your an inspiration to all of us.. keep fighting for what you believe…but please don’t antagonise or flame people who have diffrent views on the subject, if they argue there point decently then they don’t deserve to be treated the way some of you have been treating them. This country supposedly allows free speach so please allow them to use it!

If your one of those people that agree with the deportation of this family to nigeria please remember to argue your point in the correct manner and be informed. Don’t be volatile and aggressive to people who disagree with you – your letting the people on your side down!

Bye everyone xxxx

Here’s the ‘All In The Mind Interview’ with Tina, Amita etc … recommended …

All In The Mind – 15 December 2007 – Human Rights and psychiatry (Part 2 of 2): Who speaks for the chained and incarcerated?

This is a post to the MadSpirit blog to my darling …

… more news from the mad mad world …

[NOTE: If you wish to direct other people directly to this page you may use the URL http://tinyurl.com/36ofsl.]

Earlier this year, 102 countries around the world signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That’s 102 countries who have, at least on paper, now declared to the world that they recognize that people with disabilities have certain rights, including the right to full inclusion, equality of opportunity, and accessibility. And these countries have also declared that it is their responsibility to ensure that people with disabilities within their borders are able to enjoy these rights.

Find out if YOUR country is one of the signatories at http://www.un.org/disabilities/countries.asp?navid=17&pid=166. You can also read the original text of the convention in English, Spanish, French, Arabic, Russian, or Chinese at http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=12&pid=150.

But some people may have a difficult time understanding the original text of the convention. Perhaps English is not their first language. Or perhaps they do not read or write well. Or perhaps they have cognitive disabilities and need to read in simple language before they understand it. Or perhaps you would like to translate the convention into a local written or signed language. (Before translating, try google.com or other search engines to look for other, less official translations into other languages.)

The convention cannot be fully implemented until people with disabilities themselves understand what rights they have been guaranteed. Only when armed with knowledge–and with the right skills and resources–can they then be better prepared to pressure their governments to obey the UN Convention.

Recently, I received a “plain text” version of the convention, which I will provide here below. (I tried attaching it as a Word file, but for some reason it wouldn’t upload. If you’re more familiar with WordPress.com than I am, I’d welcome your advice!)

I received this text from someone using the “Disability Information Dissemination Network,” which is an email-based distribution service reaching thousands of people around the world who share an interest in working with poor people with disabilities in developing countries. It’s a good service and I’ll probably post a small portion of the materials I receive from them right here. But if you wish to receive these materials for yourself (I won’t be posting all of them, after all), you can do that by sending an email with the word “join” in the subject line to either csid%bdmail.net or to csid%bdonline.com — EXCEPT THAT you should substitute the “at” sign @ in place of the percentage sign %. (I have modified these email addresses to help protect them from spam harvesters.)

Now, for the full PLAIN TEXT version of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:

CONVENTION IN PLAIN LANGUAGE

This information is a plain language version of the text of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The full text is available on:
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/convtexte.htm

This information is based on and adapts the summary of a report of the Working Group that looked at a draft Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities prepared by the New Zealand government in 2004.

PREAMBLE
a. The founding documents of the UN say that we are all equal and we are all members of the human family which is important for freedom, fairness and peace in the world,
b. We are all equal and all of us have human rights,
c. We agree that people with disabilities must enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms and they must not be discriminated against,
d. There are seven other international agreements that promote and protect human rights,
e. We understand that disability is something that changes all the time and it is the environment and people’s attitudes that create disability,
f. It is important to keep in mind what the Standard Rules and the World Programme of Action are trying to achieve when trying to make laws, rules, decisions, programmes and practice better for people with disabilities,
g. It is very important to make sure that the situation of people with disabilities is always equally taken into consideration when governments and international organizations make plans about a country’s growth, for example, about how to get people out of poverty, or get them jobs,
h. We understand that when someone discriminates against people with disabilities, he or she takes away their dignity and value as human beings,
i. We also understand that there are many differences among people with disabilities and there are many types of disabilities,
j. We also understand that all people with disabilities must have their rights, including people with disabilities who need extra support,
k. We are worried that the rights of people with disabilities are still being taken away, even though there are agreements that protect their rights,
l. We understand that it is important that countries work with one another to make life better for people with disabilities, especially in poor countries,
m. We understand that people with disabilities help make countries better if they are fully included and their rights enjoyed,
n. We understand that it is very important that people with disabilities are free to make their own decisions,
o. We believe that people with disabilities should be included in the making of policies and programmes, especially those that are directly related to them,
p. We are worried because people with disabilities are not only discriminated because of their disabilities, but also because of race, sex, or for many other reasons,
q. We understand that many times, women and girls with disabilities are more often abused, beaten, injured or taken advantage of,
r. We understand that children with disabilities have the same rights as all other children, and that the international agreement on children’s rights also applies to them,
s. It is very important to make sure that both women’s situation and men’s situation are taken into account in everything that the country does for human rights of people with disabilities,
t. It is also very important to remember that most people with disabilities are poor, and it is necessary to find out what consequences that has for them,
u. We keep in mind that we must have peace and security to make sure people with disabilities can have their rights, especially when they live in war zones or in countries that are not run by their own government,
v. We understand how important it is for people with disabilities to be able to enjoy all areas of life, to have good health care, to go to school, to have the information they need, so that they can use their rights,
w. We understand that each of us also has the duty to make sure everyone else enjoys his/her rights,
x. We believe that the family is the main group in a society and that people with disabilities and their families should get the protection and help they need to be able to work for their human rights,
y. We believe that an Agreement that covers all areas of life will be very helpful in making lives of people with disabilities better and in making sure that people with disabilities are treated equally and equally included in all areas of life, and in poor and richer countries. Because of all the things listed, countries that decide to be part of the Agreement agree:

ARTICLE 1 PURPOSE
The reason why this Agreement is made is to make sure that the countries that agree to this Agreement (called “countries” in this document) will make sure that:
• All human rights and freedoms of all people with disabilities are enjoyed, promoted and protected;
• The dignity of people with disabilities is respected.
People with disabilities include those who have long-term impairments, for example, physical, psycho-social, intellectual and who cannot get involved in society because of different reasons, such as attitudes, language, stairs, and laws, which prevent people with disabilities from being included in society.

ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS
Communication – Means all ways of communicating, so that all people can communicate. For example, spoken language, sign language, text, Braille, touch, large print, written, audio, plain language, human reader and other ways that people with disabilities communicate.
“Language” – means all kinds of languages, spoken, signed, and other types of language that is not spoken.
“Discrimination on the basis of disability” – when people are excluded, shut out or prevented from doing things because of their disability. This can be in all areas of life.
“Reasonable Accommodation” – means that a person may need to have changes made, for example, to their home, or where they work, so they are able to enjoy their rights. If this is too expensive or too difficult then the changes may not be able to be made.
“Universal Design” – means that things are made, programmes created and places adapted so that they can be used by all people. Sometimes someone with a particular type of disability may need something specially made so they can enjoy their rights.

ARTICLE 3 GENERAL PRINCIPLES
This Agreement is about:
• Dignity
• Ability to choose
• Independence
• Non-discrimination
• Participation
• Full inclusion
• Respect for difference
• Acceptance of disability as part of everyday life
• Equality of opportunity
• Accessibility
• Equality of men and women
• Respect for children.

ARTICLE 4 GENERAL OBLIGATIONS
1. The countries promise to make sure that all human rights apply to all people, without discrimination because of disability. To fulfill this promise, they will:
a. Do what it takes to make sure that the rights from this Agreement are put into laws, policies, and practice in their country;
b. Take action: for example, adopt new laws and rules, change old rules and laws where necessary, and get rid of other laws and stop actions that discriminate against people with disabilities;
c. Make sure that the human rights of people with disabilities are included in all policies and programmes;
d. Not do things that do not support the Agreement, and make sure others respect the Agreement;
e. Take action to stop individuals, organizations or businesses from discriminating because of a person’s disability;
f. Work on and encourage the use of goods, services, equipment and facilities that can be used by all people with disabilities all over the world, at the smallest possible cost to the person;
g. Work on and encourage new technologies in all aspects of life that are useful for people with disabilities, especially those that are low cost;
h. Provide information about all types of assistance, including technologies, and other forms of assistance, in a way that can be understood by people with disabilities;
i. Promote trainings about the rights in this Agreement for those who work with people with disabilities to make sure they can work better with people with disabilities.
2. For economic, social and cultural rights, the countries will put into practice the laws and rules that relate to these rights as much as they can with resources they have. If need be, they can cooperate with other countries to put into practice these rights. All other rights must be put into practice right away.
3. When making laws and rules about this Agreement, the countries will talk to and involve people with disabilities, including children with disabilities, through the organizations that represent them.
4. This Agreement will not affect any laws or rules that are better for the rights of people with disabilities. Countries must not use the Agreement as an excuse to not put into practice human rights that already exist.
5. The Agreement will apply to the country as a whole.

ARTICLE 5 EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION
1. The countries agree that all people with disabilities are equal before the law and protected by the law without any discrimination.
2. The countries agree that discrimination because of a disability will not be allowed and that people will be protected if there is such discrimination.
3. The countries will take action to make sure that if a person with a disability needs changes made to his/her environment to enjoy his/her rights, then those changes will be made.
4. Special actions, or actions that are needed for people with disabilities to become equal to others, are allowed. This type of special treatment is not discriminatory to people without disabilities.

ARTICLE 6 WOMEN WITH DISABILITIES
The countries agree that:
1. Women and girls with disabilities face all types of discrimination. Countries will make sure girls and women enjoy full and equal human rights and freedoms.
2. They will take action to support the growth and empowerment of women and guarantee that women with disabilities enjoy their rights.

ARTICLE 7 CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
The countries will:
1. Make sure that children with disabilities have the same rights as other children.
2. Make sure that what is best for the child is a priority whenever they do anything that concerns children.
3. Make sure that children with disabilities have the right to tell their opinion and that their opinion is taken into account. Make sure that children with disabilities get the help they need to tell their opinions.

ARTICLE 8 AWARENESS-RAISING
1. The countries agree that, without delay, they will:
a. Help families and all people in society be more aware of the issues facing people with disabilities. They will work to make sure that rights and dignity of people with disabilities are respected;
b. Fight against stereotypes and prejudices about people with disabilities;
Stereotypes are general and incorrect beliefs that some people have about people with disabilities. These beliefs are often damaging which leads to discrimination against people with disabilities.
c. Help people in society be aware of the capabilities of people with disabilities and how they can help the country grow.
2. The countries will also:
a. Make public campaigns about the rights of people with disabilities that:
i. Show that people with disabilities have the same rights as all people;
ii. Highlight disability in the community and change misunderstandings about disability;
iii. Show how people with disabilities help improve the workplace.
b. Make sure that schools and other places of learning teach respect for the rights of people with disabilities;
c. Encourage media (i.e. radio, television, newspapers and magazines) to show images of people with disabilities that promote the rights of people with disabilities;
d. Promote training programmes that will help people be aware of rights of people with disabilities.

ARTICLE 9 ACCESSIBILITY
1. The countries will eliminate barriers that people with disabilities face in buildings, the outdoors, transport, information, communication and services, in both cities and the countryside. This way people with disabilities can live independently and fully live their lives. They will make rules and put them into practice for:
a. Buildings, roads, transportation, indoor and outdoor objects, for example, schools, housing, hospitals, health centers, and workplaces;
b. Information, communications, and other things, for example, electronic services and emergency services.
2. The countries will also take action to:
a. Make, put in place, and oversee minimum standards for accessibility for places and services that are open to public;
b. Make sure that private businesses and organizations that are open to the public are accessible for people with disabilities;
c. Train people who are involved in accessibility issues on what people with disabilities need when it comes to accessibility;
d. Have Braille signs and easy to read and understand information in buildings open to the public;
e. Provide help, such as readers, sign language interpreters and guides, so people with disabilities can access buildings open to the public;
f. Provide other types of help as needed so people with disabilities can get access to information;
g. Promote access to new technologies for people with disabilities;
h. When looking for, and creating new technology, make sure that accessibility is taken into account early on, so that this technology can be made accessible at the smallest cost.

ARTICLE 10 RIGHT TO LIFE
The countries agree that all people with disabilities have the right to life and will take action to make sure people with disabilities can use this right.

ARTICLE 11 SITUATIONS OF RISK AND HUMANITARIAN EMERGENCIES
The countries agree that they will respect all other agreements they have entered into about war or human rights.
The countries will take action to make sure that in the case of war, natural catastrophies or other emergencies, people with disabilities are protected.

ARTICLE 12 EQUAL RECOGNITION AS A PERSON BEFORE THE LAW
The countries:
1. Agree that people with disabilities have the right to be recognised as people before the law.
2. Agree that people with disabilities are capable like all other people on legal issues in all areas of their lives.
3. Will take action to make sure that people with disabilities can get and use support if they need it to work on legal issues.
4. Agree that where people with disabilities need support on legal or financial issues:
• They will be protected from abuse;
• Their rights and their choices will be respected;
• People who give support will not pressure people with disabilities into making a decision;
• They get the help they need, only for the time they need it and only as much as they need;
• The courts will review the support received.
5. Agree and will make sure that people with disabilities:
• Have the right to own or get property;
• Have the right to control their money or other financial affairs;
• Have the same opportunities as other people to get bank loans, mortgages and credit;
• Cannot have property taken away without a reason.

ARTICLE 13 ACCESS TO JUSTICE
1. The countries will make sure that people with disabilities can access the justice system in their countries just like all other people.
They will make sure that any rules which say how things should be done are adapted so that people with disabilities can be productively involved in all stages of legal processes, for example, being a witness.
2. The countries will provide training for people working in the justice system, such as police and prison staff.

ARTICLE 14 LIBERTY AND SECURITY
1. The countries will:
a. Make sure that people with disabilities have the same right to liberty and security as all other people;
b. Make sure that people with disabilities do not have this right taken away from them without a reason, because they have a disability, or in a way that is against the law.
2. The countries will make sure that if a person has had his/her liberty taken, he/she will be protected by law. They will also make sure that changes are made to the individual’s environment if they are needed for that person to enjoy his or her human rights.

ARTICLE 15 FREEDOM FROM TORTURE OR CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR Punishment
1. Nobody will be tortured, or be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way. Nobody will be forced to take part in medical or scientific experiments.
2. The countries agree to pass laws, and take other action to make sure that people with disabilities are protected from torture just like all other people.

ARTICLE 16 FREEDOM FROM EXPLOITATION, VIOLENCE AND ABUSE
The countries will:

1. Pass laws, and take other action to make sure people with disabilities are not exploited or abused, both inside and outside their home.
2. Take action to prevent exploitation of people with disabilities by giving help and appropriate information to make sure people with disabilities and their families are protected from abuse.
3. Make sure that institutions and programmes serving people with disabilities are regularly looked at to make sure there is no violence or abuse.
4. Support people with disabilities with their recovery and reintegration into society if they have been victims of violence and abuse.
5. Create laws and policies to investigate and punish people who abuse or mistreat people with disabilities. These laws and policies will make sure that the needs of women and children are included.

ARTICLE 17 PROTECTING INTEGRITY
People with disabilities have the same right as everyone else to be respected for their physical and mental whole.

ARTICLE 18 FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND NATIONALITY
1. The countries agree that people with disabilities have the same rights as others to move around in their country or between countries, to choose where they live and to have a nationality like all other people. They will make sure that people with disabilities:
a. Have the right to get and to change their nationality and that nobody can take away their nationality without a reason or because of a disability;
b. Cannot have their passports or other identification of nationality taken away without a reason, or because of a disability, and that they are allowed to try to move to another country;
c. Are free to leave their own country and any other country;
d. Cannot be stopped from entering their own country without a reason or because of a disability.
2. Children with disabilities will be registered immediately after they are born. They will have the right to a name, to a nationality and, as much as possible, the right to know their parents, and be raised by their own parents.

ARTICLE 19 LIVING INDEPENDENTLY AND BEING INCLUDED IN THE COMMUNITY
The countries agree that all people with disabilities have the same right as anyone else to live in the community and to be fully included and participating in the community. This includes making sure that people with disabilities:
a. Have the same opportunities as other people to choose who they live with, where they live, and are not forced to live in institutions or in other living arrangements that they do not like;
b. Have a range of choices on where and how to live in the community, including personal assistance, to help with inclusion and living in the community and preventing people with disabilities from being isolated;
c. People with disabilities can use community services that are available to the public, which may need to be adapted to a particular person’s needs.

ARTICLE 20 PERSONAL MOBILITY
The countries will make sure that people with disabilities can move around with the greatest possible independence, including:
a. Assisting people to move around in the way they choose and at a cost that they can afford;
b. Assisting people with disabilities to access mobility aids and technology, including making sure they do not cost a lot;
c. Providing training in mobility skills for people with disabilities and staff working with them;
d. Encouraging those that produce mobility aids and technology to take into account all aspects of movement.

ARTICLE 21 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND OPINION AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION
The countries will make sure that people with disabilities have the right to say what they think through Braille, sign language or other types of communication that they choose.
The countries will make sure people with disabilities have the same right as other people to give and receive information, including:
a. Providing information intended for the general public to people with disabilities in formats that are adequate for them without extra cost (for example, Braille);
b. Accepting the use of different ways people with disabilities communicate in official situations;
c. Encouraging private businesses and organizations that serve the public to make their services more accessible for people with disabilities;
d. Encouraging the media to make their information accessible to people with disabilities;
e. Agreeing to, and promoting the use of sign language.

ARTICLE 22 RESPECT FOR PRIVACY
The countries will:
1. Make sure that nobody gets involved in the private life of people with disabilities without a reason, or in a way that is against the law. They will make sure that nobody illegally attacks the honour and reputation of people with disabilities. People with disabilities have the right to be protected by the law from such attacks.
2. Protect the confidentiality of personal, health and rehabilitation information of people with disabilities, in the same way that other people’s information is protected.

ARTICLE 23 RESPECT FOR HOME AND THE FAMILY
1. The countries will take action to stop discrimination against people with disabilities when it comes to marriage and family relations, to make sure that:
a. People with disabilities have the same right as other people to marry and have a family;
b. People with disabilities have the same rights as other people to have children, to decide how many children to have, and when to have them. They should get information and be educated on reproduction and family planning; and they should get help to understand this information;
c. People with disabilities have the same right as everyone else to keep their fertility.
2. The countries will make sure that people with disabilities have the rights and responsibilities related to guardianship and adoption of children, with the most important issue being the child(ren)’s interest. They will give support to people with disabilities in accomplishing responsibilities related to raising their children.
3. The countries will make sure children with disabilities have the same rights as everyone else to a family life. From an early stage the countries will provide the information, services and support to children with disabilities and their families.
4. The child must not be taken away from his/her parents against his/her will, unless it is in the best interests of the child and is done legally. The child cannot be separated from parents because of the parent’s or the child’s disability.
5. Where close family (for example parents, brother or sister) cannot care for a child with a disability, they will look first at the wider family, and then the local community to provide care for the child.

ARTICLE 24 EDUCATION
1. The countries agree that all people with disabilities have the right to education. They will make sure that the education system, at all levels, includes people with disabilities, and that the educational system:
a. Works to make sure everyone develops their human potential, sense of dignity and self worth, and respect for human rights, freedoms and diversity;
b. Works to develop the person’s personality and talents to their fullest potential;
c. Works to make sure all people with disabilities can be involved in society.
2. To do this, the countries will make sure that:
a. People with disabilities are not excluded from education because of their disability, and children with disabilities are not excluded from free and compulsory primary and secondary education because of their disability;
b. All people with disabilities can choose education that includes them, is accessible and is in their own community;
c. Reasonable changes are made to make sure that people with disabilities get the most out of their education;
d. People with disabilities get the help they need to get the most out of their education;
e. The help for students with disabilities is given so that their individual needs are met.
3. The countries will make it possible for people with disabilities to learn social and life skills that they need to go to schools and be in the community. They will do this by:
a. Arranging that students with disabilities learn Braille or other types of communication, and that they get peer support and mentoring;
b. Teaching sign language;
c. Making sure that especially children who are blind, deaf or deafblind are educated in the most appropriate types of communication so that they get the most out of their education.
4. To help make sure that these rights are put into practice, the countries will hire teachers who are people with disabilities, teachers who are qualified in Braille and sign languages, and will train teachers and staff at all levels of education on how to give quality education to people with disabilities.
5. Countries will make sure that people with disabilities have equal access to vocational training, study in universities and lifelong learning like all other people, and will make any changes needed to make that happen.

ARTICLE 25 HEALTH
The countries recognise that all people with disabilities have the same right to quality health care, without discrimination because of disability.
The countries will make sure that health and health-related rehabilitation services are available, including:
a. Making sure that people with disabilities get the same variety, quality and standard of free and affordable health care as other people;
b. Making sure that people with disabilities can get services they need because of their disability and to protect them from further disability;
c. Having health services in peoples’ own communities;
d. Insisting that health workers give the same quality care to people with disabilities as to others, for example, only if the person agrees and has been told about their rights—achieved through trainings and by making ethical standards for health care;
e. Stopping discrimination against people with disabilities when it comes to health insurance and life insurance, and making sure that such insurance is provided fairly;
f. Making sure that people with disabilities will not be discriminated against and denied health care or health services or food and fluids because of their disability.

ARTICLE 26 HABILITATION AND REHABILITATION
1. The countries will take action, for example by promoting peer support, to make it possible for people with disabilities to enjoy maximum independence, full abilities and that they can be fully involved in all aspects of life. To make sure this happens, the countries will make available services that cover all areas of life, both in habilitation and rehabilitation, so that they:
a. Begin as early as possible, and are made specifically with strengths and needs of a particular person in mind;
b. Help people with disabilities participate and be involved in the community;
c. Are voluntary and available as close as possible to their communities.
2. The countries will promote training programmes for staff working in habilitation and rehabilitation services.
3. The countries will promote the use of assistive devices and other types of aid as they relate to habilitation and rehabilitation.

ARTICLE 27 WORK AND EMPLOYMENT
1. The countries agree that people with disabilities have the same right to work as other people. This also means that they have the right to earn a living from work they choose in a work environment that is open and accessible to all people.
The countries will pass laws and take other action needed to:
a. Stop discrimination because of disabilities in all situations relating to all kinds of employment. This relates, for example, to situations when people with disabilities are trying to get jobs, are hired, or promoted, or in making sure that the working conditions are safe and healthy;
b. Protect the rights of people with disabilities to equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity, safe and healthy working conditions, and the ability to make complaints;
c. Make sure that people with disabilities can organize and join labor unions and trade unions like everyone else;
d. Make it possible for people with disabilities to get career counseling and vocational trainings;
e. Promote employment, career advances, and help people with disabilities to find and keep employment;
f. Promote self-employment, business opportunities, and start-up businesses;
g. Hire people with disabilities in the government;
h. Encourage and help employers to hire people with disabilities;
i. Make it easy for people with disabilities to be in the work place and work environment by making sure reasonable allowances are made for them;
j. Work to make sure that people with disabilities can gain work experience in the labour market;
k. Promote vocational and professional rehabilitation and programmes to
support people with disabilities to return to work and keep their jobs.
2. The countries will make sure that people with disabilities are not held in slavery. They will protect people with disabilities from forced labor as all other people are protected.

ARTICLE 28 ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING AND SOCIAL PROTECTION
1. The countries recognise the right of people with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families. This includes adequate food, clothing, housing, and to always be improving their living conditions.
2. The countries also recognise the right of people with disabilities to social protection by the government, without discrimination because of their disability.
The countries will protect this right, including by making sure that:
a. People with disabilities can get necessary services, equipment and help for disability related needs;
b. People with disabilities have access to social welfare assistance and programmes that help them get out of poverty. This especially applies to women and girls with disabilities and older people with disabilities;
c. People with disabilities and their families who live in poverty get help from the government to be able to pay for expenses related to their disability;
d. People with disabilities have access to government housing programmes;
e. People with disabilities can get pensions.

ARTICLE 29 PARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL AND PUBLIC LIFE
The countries recognise the political rights of people with disabilities without discrimination, and will:

a. Make sure that people with disabilities can be fully involved in political and public life, for example by having the right to vote and be elected. To do this they should make sure:
i. That voting is easy to understand and accessible;
ii. To protect the right of citizens to vote in secret and to be elected;
iii. That citizens with disabilities who want assistance can get help to vote
from someone of their choice.
b. Encourage people with disabilities to be involved in the work of the government and to participate in public affairs, including:
i. Being involved in non-governmental organizations and associations
focused on the activities of political parties and civil society;

ii. Forming and joining organizations of people with disabilities to
represent people with disabilities, nationally, regionally and locally.

ARTICLE 30 PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL LIFE, RECREATION, LEISURE AND SPORT
1. The countries recognise the right of people with disabilities to take part in cultural life. They will take action to make sure that:
a. People with disabilities have access to literature and other writings in formats such as Braille, sign and audio;
b. People with disabilities can get television programmes, film, theatre and other cultural activities in a way that they will understand, for example, with captioning and sign language;
c. People with disabilities can get to cultural performances and services such as libraries, museums, theatres and sites of national importance.
2. The countries will take action to make it possible for people with disabilities to develop and use their creative, artistic and intellectual potential.
3. The countries will take action to make sure that laws that protect documents and other writings and inventions from forgery or copying do not discriminate against people with disabilities.
4. People with disabilities have the right, just like everyone else, to have their
culture and language recognised, for example sign languages and deaf culture.
5. The countries also recognise that people with disabilities have the same right as others to take part in recreation, leisure and sports. The countries will take action to:
a. Encourage and promote involvement of people with disabilities in sports with people without disabilities at all levels;
b. Make sure that people with disabilities have a chance to organize and participate in sport activities, and to receive the same training and support as other people;
c. Make sure that people with disabilities can get to sports and recreation arenas as other people can;
d. Make sure that children with disabilities can participate in play and sports at school, like other children;
e. Make sure that person with disabilities can get services to help organize recreational and sporting activities.

ARTICLE 31 STATISTICS AND DATA COLLECTION
1. The countries will collect and look at statistics and other information to put into practice this Agreement.
In collecting this information they will:
a. Respect the right to people’s privacy. The information should be given only if people agree;
b. Respect human rights and ethics when collecting and using the statistics.
2.The information collected will be in categories so that the countries can better understand how to put into practice the Agreement, and to learn more about barriers that exist for people with disabilities.
3. The countries are responsible for distributing this information and making sure that it is in a format like Braille or easy-to-read, for example, so that people with disabilities can access it.

ARTICLE 32 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
1. The countries agree that it is important that they work together to make sure that each of them can put this Agreement into practice. They will take action to work together, especially with organizations of people with disabilities, to:
a. Make sure that people with disabilities are included and can access international programmes for development;
b. Make sure that they work together to educate people by sharing information, experiences, training programmes and best practices;
c. Arrange cooperation in areas of science and technology;
d. Give technical and economic help, for example by sharing new technologies.
2. The governments are not allowed to say that because they do not have help from other countries, they cannot put the Agreement into practice.

ARTICLE 33 NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
1. The countries will make sure that there is at least one position in the government that will be responsible for making sure that the Agreement is put into practice.
2. The countries will make sure that within the government, they create an independent institution that will monitor how the Agreement is being put into practice.
3. Non-governmental organizations, especially people with disabilities and their organizations, will be fully involved in overseeing how the country puts the Agreement into practice.
ARTICLE 34
Committee on the Rights of People with Disabilities
1. The Committee on the Rights of People with Disabilities will be created.
2. When the Agreement becomes law, the Committee will have 12 experts. After 60 more countries agree to the Agreement, six experts will be added with a maximum of 18 members.
3. Members of the Committee will serve as individuals. They will be highly ethical and will be experts or have experience with disability.
4. The countries will elect the members of the Committee and will make sure that they are from all over the world, that they have members who are men, women, people with disabilities, and come from different legal systems.
5. When countries meet for a Conference, they will elect the members of the Committee in secret. To be elected, a person must receive the largest number of votes. Also, more than half of people present at the Conference must vote for him/her.
6. The first election will happen within the first six months after the Agreement becomes law. After that, four months before every election, the UN Secretary General will send a letter to the countries and ask them to nominate people for the Committee. Countries will have two months to do so.
7. Members of the Committee will serve for four years. They can be re-elected once. After the first election, six members of the Committee will serve for only two years.
8. When time comes for the additional six members to be added to the Committee, they will be elected during regular elections.
9. If a member of the Committee dies or leaves, the country that nominated that member will get to nominate another expert to serve for the rest of the term.
10. The Committee will make its own rules of how it will work.
11. The UN Secretary General will give staff and office space to make sure that the Committee can work effectively.
12. The members of the Committee will get paid for their services and the UN General Assembly will decide how much.
13. The members of the Committee will have the same rights as the other experts of the UN.

ARTICLE 35 REPORTS BY STATES PARTIES
1. Each country will write a report for the Committee within two years after the Agreement becomes law. The countries will report on how they are putting the Agreement into practice.
2. After that, each country will report to the Committee at least every four years.
3. The Committee will say what should be in the report.
4. After the country writes the first report, it does not have to repeat the same information in later reports. It is recommended that countries write their reports openly and consult with people with disabilities and their organizations.
5. The countries can write in the report what difficulties they had in putting the Agreement into practice.

ARTICLE 36 CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS
1. When a Committee receives the report it will:
• Review and make comments and recommendations;
• Give the comments and recommendations to the country that reported;
• The country may then give more information to the Committee;
• Ask for more information if needed.
2. If a country is very late with its report, the Committee will:
• Tell the country that it is late;
• If after three months, the country still does not report, the Committee will let
the country know that it needs to visit the country to examine how it is putting into practice the Agreement.
3. All countries will get each country’s report from the UN Secretary General.
4. The countries will share the report publicly in their countries and will allow comments and suggestions on the report.
5. If needed, the Committee will send the country’s report to other agencies within the UN, so that they can help the country with technical issues.

ARTICLE 37 COOPERATION BETWEEN STATES PARTIES AND THE COMMITTEE
1. Each country will work together with the Committee and help them do their job.
2. When working with the countries, the Committee will also try to find ways to make sure the countries are better equipped to put the Agreement into practice.

ARTICLE 38 RELATIONSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE WITH OTHER BODIES
To make sure that the Agreement is put into practice and to encourage countries to work together:
a. Agencies can be included in the meetings of the Committee when the Committee is talking about issues that the agency works on.
The Committee can invite these agencies to the meetings when their expertise is required.
The Committee can also ask these agencies to give their own reports on how countries are putting the Agreement into practice.
b. There are seven other committees that look at how countries are putting into practice other human rights agreements, for example, agreements on women, children, etc. The Committee will talk to these other committees to make sure that they are not repeating their work, and to make sure that they are consistent when giving advice to countries on how to best put the Agreement into practice.

ARTICLE 39 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
The Committee will report to the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council every two years. It will make suggestions and recommendations based on the reports they receive.

ARTICLE 40 CONFERENCE OF STATES PARTIES
1. The countries will meet regularly to talk about issues relating to putting the Agreement into practice.
2. Within six months after the Agreement becomes law, the UN Secretary General will organize the first meeting. After that, the meetings will happen every two years or as the countries decide.

ARTICLE 41 DEPOSITARY
The Agreement will be filed with the UN Secretary General.

ARTICLE 42 SIGNATURE
The Agreement will be open for signing by all countries at the main UN building in New York as of March 30, 2007.

ARTICLE 43 CONSENT TO BE BOUND
The countries that sign the Agreement right away will have to “ratify” it, that is, their national government will have to accept the responsibility to put the Agreement into practice.
If the country does not sign the Agreement right away, they will be able to “accede” to the Agreement, meaning that they can join later.

ARTICLE 44 REGIONAL INTEGRATION ORGANIZATIONS
1. “Regional integration organization” is an organization made up of a number of countries in the same region that have given that organization the power to deal with issues that are covered in the Agreement.
2. When the Agreement says “countries” it also applies to these organizations.
3. When counting how many countries have signed the Agreement, these organizations do not count.
4. These organizations can vote during the meetings, and will have as many votes as there are countries in the organization. If any of the countries in the organization votes on its own, the organization cannot vote.

ARTICLE 45 ENTRY INTO FORCE
1. The Agreement will become law on the 30th day after 20 countries ratify or accede to the Agreement.
2. After that, when countries accept the Agreement, it will become law for them 30 days after the acceptance.

ARTICLE 46 RESERVATIONS
1. The countries can make reservations, meaning that they can say when they are signing the Agreement that they will not put into practice a particular obligation.
But, these reservations cannot be against the goal and intent of this Agreement.
2. The reservations can be taken away at any time.

ARTICLE 47 AMENDMENTS
1. Any country can propose changes to the Agreement with the UN Secretary General.
The Secretary General will then send the proposed changes to other countries.
If, within four months, at least one third of all countries want to meet to adopt the changes, Secretary General will organize the meeting.
The changes will be adopted if two-thirds of countries that are present at the meeting vote for them. Then the Secretary General will present it to the UN General Assembly for acceptance.
2. When a change is approved by the General Assembly, it will become law 30 days after two-thirds of all countries accept it.
After that, whenever a country accepts the change it will become law for them 30 days after they accept it.
The changes will be law only for those countries that accept it.
3. If the proposed change is about the reporting or the Committee, then 30 days after it is accepted by two-thirds of all countries, it will become law for all countries, not only those who accept the change.

ARTICLE 48 DENUNCIATION
A country can later go back and say that they will not agree to the Agreement anymore. To do this, they must write it down and send it to the UN Secretary General. That becomes effective one year after that.

ARTICLE 49 ACCESSIBLE FORMAT
The text of the Agreement will be prepared in Braille and other forms, so that all people can read it and understand it.

ARTICLE 50 AUTHENTIC TEXTS
The Agreement will be equally original in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish.
OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities
(to be adopted at the same time as the Agreement)
All countries that agree to this Protocol agree to:

ARTICLE 1
1. Give the power to the Committee to receive and review complaints from individuals or organizations about violations of rights in the Agreement.
2. The Committee will only deal with complaints from countries that agree to this Protocol.

Article 2
The Committee will NOT accept the complaints if:
a. They do not say who they are from;
b. They do not match the Agreement;
c. The same situation has already been investigated. The same situation is being investigated by another body;
d. The people complaining did not use their domestic system to the fullest extent. But, the complaint will be reviewed if the domestic system takes too long;
e. The complaint is without basis; there is no proof;
f. The complaint is about something that happened before the Protocol became law.

Article 3
If the complaint is accepted, the Committee will secretly send it to the country in question. The country will respond within six months, and will say what solution they found.

Article 4
1. When the Committee gets a complaint, it can ask the country to take action right away if there is a risk that the victim(s) will be hurt permanently.
2. If the Committee decides to ask the country to take action right away, this does not mean that the case is successful.

Article 5
The Committee will meet in secret when examining complaints. After examining the complaint the Committee may, if needed, give suggestions and recommendations to the country in question and to the person(s) complaining.

Article 6
1. If the Committee gets trustworthy information about serious or widespread violations of rights in the Agreement, it may invite the country in question to participate in the reviewing of the information and to give its opinion on it.
2. After reviewing all the information that it has, the Committee may select one or more of its members to urgently investigate the matter. If the country in question agrees, and if it is needed, it may make a visit to the country to investigate directly.
3. The Committee will give the country in question the results of the investigation and any recommendations it has.
4. The country in question will give its opinion on the results to the Committee within six months.
5. The investigation will be confidential and the country in question will be asked to cooperate throughout the process.

Article 7
1. The Committee can ask the country in question to include in its report what it did in response to the investigation.
2. If it is needed, the Committee can ask the country in question to give its opinion on the results of the investigation if it has not answered within six months.

Article 8
Each country that agrees to this Protocol is allowed to say that it does not give the power to the Committee for situations discussed in Articles 6 and 7.

Article 9
The Protocol will be filed with the UN Secretary General.

Article 10
This Protocol will be open for signing at the UN Headquarters in New York as of 30 March 2007.

Article 11
The countries that agree to put the Agreement into practice can sign this Protocol and must then ratify it in their home countries.

Article 12
1. “Regional integration organization” is an organization of several countries that have given it (the organization) the power to deal with issues that are covered in the Protocol.
2. When this Protocol says “countries that agree to this Protocol,” it applies also to these organizations.
3. When counting how many countries have signed the Protocol, these organizations do not count.
4. These organizations can vote during the meetings, and will have as many votes as there are countries in the organization. If any of the countries in the organization votes on its own, the organization cannot vote.

Article 13
1. After the Agreement becomes law, this Protocol will become law on the 30th day after 10 countries ratify or accede to the Protocol.
2. After that, when countries accept the Protocol, it will become law for them 30 days after the acceptance.

Article 14
The countries that agree to this Protocol can make reservations. But, these reservations cannot be against the goal and the intent of the Protocol.
The reservations can be taken away at any time.

Article 15
1. Any country that agrees to this Protocol can suggest a change to the Protocol with the UN Secretary General.
The Secretary General will then send the proposed changes to other countries that agreed to this Protocol.
If, within four months, at least one third of all countries that agreed to this Protocol want to meet to adopt the changes, Secretary General will organize the meeting. At the meeting, the changes will be adopted if two-thirds of countries that are present vote for them.
Then the Secretary General will present them to the General Assembly for acceptance.
2. When the changes are approved by the General Assembly, they will become law 30 days after two-thirds of all countries that agree to this Protocol accept it. After that, whenever a country accepts the changes, they will become law for them 30 days after they accept it. The changes will be law only for those countries that accept them.

Article 16
A country can later go back and say that they will not agree to the Protocol anymore. To do this, they must write it down and send it to the UN Secretary General and it will become effective one year after that.

Article 17
The text of the Protocol will be prepared in Braille and other forms, so that all people can read it and understand it.

Article 18
The Protocol will be equally original in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish.

Learn how to receive an email alert when new material is posted at We Can Do.

From the November/December 2006 Court Report Cover Story

By Michael P. Farris

Human rights should not be viewed as being in conflict with the promotion of pluralism. At the core, any theory of human rights views the decisions of individuals for their own lives to be presumptively superior to governmental authority. Of course, there are limits to this theory, and not all things that are claimed to be a human right survive logical analysis. But there is something about the right of private judgment that is fundamental to the idea of human rights.

One of the most important applications of this right of private judgment, at least to the homeschooling community, is the right of parents to decide how their children should be educated. Parents should have a prior right to make such decisions that is superior to any claim of government.

Pluralism, properly defined, is a compatible goal with human rights. In an operational sense, pluralism means that people of different races, religions, and views should live together with mutual respect and as equal citizens.

A government may promote pluralism. But if pluralism and human rights are to mean anything, they must mean that a person may not be compelled to give up his or her individual views in the name of making a pluralistic society. In fact, coerced pluralism is a self-defeating objective.

This thought completely evaded the European Court of Human Rights in its September 12, 2006, decision that affirmed the power of the German government to ban home education. Parents who claimed both parental rights and religious freedom were rebuffed by the court in a shocking assertion of raw governmental power to indoctrinate children — all in the name of the promotion of pluralism.

This decision is devastating for the German homeschooling movement. We must take action as soon as possible to help these families escape the unacceptable tyranny that they now face. However, the decision was rendered just as this edition of the Court Report was going to press, and Home School Legal Defense Association has not had time to formulate specific plans to help our brothers and sisters in Germany.

We must recognize that this decision may have enormous implications for the American homeschooling movement as well.

I have written prior articles on the threat of international law and the need to explicitly define and protect parental rights in the text of the United States Constitution.¹ For some time, I have believed that (1) international law would conclude that the right to homeschooling is unprotected; and (2) American courts would import this and other principles of international law to our own detriment.

We see in the European decision exactly what would happen in the United States if the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child were ratified by the Senate or employed by the federal courts as a measure of enforceable customary international law. In short, if the international law movement is not curtailed in the United States, American homeschooling will be banned.

The European decision was based in large part on a child’s supposed right to an education. American courts have never ruled that education is a constitutional right. There is a good reason for this. If it were so labeled, all aspects of our educational system would be run by the judiciary. Today, the judiciary rules the schools on the periphery. But if the idea of education as a constitutional right is ever successful, then we will see a flood of claims that demand particular kinds of education and particular levels of education spending determined by the judiciary.

By the way, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), has introduced a constitutional amendment that declares the right to an education to be the constitutional right of every child.

The child’s right to an education was interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights to mean that every child has the “right” to attend the public schools to receive instruction for the promotion of “pluralism.”

But the court had a funny idea of what it means to have a right. Normally a right does not mean that you must take it if you don’t want it, but this is what the court determined. Moreover, it is antithetical to any reasonable theory of human rights to coerce children to receive instruction in pluralism.

The European court declared that the aim of their Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms includes “safeguarding pluralism in education which is essential for the preservation of the ‘democratic society’ . . . . In view of the power of the modern State, it is above all through State teaching that this aim must be realised . . . .”²

While the decision noted that some nations in the European Union allow for homeschooling, and while Germany allows for private institutional education, the court made it clear that such allowances are a matter of legislative grace and not founded in principles of protected human rights.

If a nation wanted to ban all private education in the name of the promotion of pluralism, the reasoning of the court stands clearly on the side of such a measure. After all, “the applicant parents were free to educate their children after school and at weekends,” the court said.

This is the exact opposite of what the United States Supreme Court said on the same matter in the famous case Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925). The unanimous Court held that “the fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.”

While we take comfort in this fact for the moment, there is no doubt that if the Pierce case were before the Court today, it would not receive a unanimous vote from the justices. At a minimum, Justice Scalia would vote against such an outcome based on his clear statements that parental rights are not enforceable. There is a substantial likelihood that other justices would join with him.

Moreover, the reason that parental rights cases are so often mishandled in lower courts is that our claims of parental rights are based upon Supreme Court decisions and not upon the actual text of the Constitution. There is enough fuzzy language in Supreme Court opinions to give lower courts the latitude they want to override parental rights in the name of the “good of the state.”

The European decision in Konrad v. Germany should serve as a wake-up call to American parents. The federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have already begun to use international theories of children’s rights in interpreting American law.

If we are going to protect parental rights by placing an amendment into the actual text of the Constitution — securing parental rights in black and white — we must do so now. We cannot wait until European law has overtaken us.

As I recently reflected on the current failure of the effort to gain an amendment to guard against same-sex marriage, something important finally dawned on me. I was one of the voices calling for a federal marriage amendment back in 1999. The answer we received from most pro-family leaders at the time was, “Come back when the problem is acute.”

Here is the problem with that approach.

What would an acute failure in the protection of parental rights look like? The government could enact an outrageous program invading the sphere of the family. The Supreme Court could change its views on the right of parents by adopting some combination of the views of Justice Scalia (parents’ rights are not protected but should be) and Hillary Clinton (parents’ rights should not trump the rights of children as represented in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child). If something of this sort happened, it would mean that a significant portion of society had shifted in the wrong direction.

Constitutional amendments are successful only if the American public supports them by an overwhelming majority. If we wait until the problems are acute, we will have waited until public support for parental rights has dissipated — probably to the point that achieving victory is impossible.

Waiting ensures defeat.

James Madison was told that the immediate problems facing the nation were too severe to waste time on securing the Bill of Rights. After all, where were the current problems on any of these matters? But Madison knew that if he did not secure the Bill of Rights at the first available moment, the mood of society might well change and the opportunity would be lost forever.

We must have the practical political instincts of James Madison. Today is the day. We must secure parents’ rights as a protected right in the actual text of the Constitution of the United States.

Tomorrow may be too late. International law knocks at the door.

ENDNOTES

¹ See the Home School Court Report, “A Dangerous Path: Has America Abandoned Parental Rights?” (July/August 2006), “Parental Rights: Why Now Is the Time to Act” (March/April 2006), and “Judicial Tyranny Goes Global” (March/April 2005).

² Konrad and others v. Germany (2006). Go to www.echr.coe.int and select “Case-Law” to search for the text of the decision.