Obama's Chance to Lead: Sign the Disability Treaty

President Obama has made it a priority to re-position the United States as a leader in the global arena. One area where we are conspicuously silent--and could lead or at least participate more fully--is disability rights.

Over all, according to the U.N., 650 million people, 10% of the world population, live with a disability. This makes them the world's largest minority. Worse yet, the World Bank reports that 20% of the world's poorest people have some kind of disability. They tend to be regarded in their own communities as the most disadvantaged.

On December 13th, 2006, The UN General Assembly adopted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD). At the time of its adoption, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called the CRPD a "remarkable and forward-looking document... The first human rights treaty to be adopted in the twenty-first century." The purpose of the Convention is to promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights by persons with disabilities. A staggering 139 countries having signed the Convention and 58 have ratified it, including the United Kingdom this past month. What are we waiting for?

Georges Benjamin, Executive Director of The American Public Health Association, sent a letter in March asking our government to sign the CRPD. And last year (2008), the National Disability Council found the CRPD and the ADA to be legally compatible.

Frankly, these are rights we already hold dear and protect through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which will soon mark its 19th anniversary on July 26th.

Not signing and ratifying the CRPD sends the message that while we protect our disabled, we don't care if the rest of the world does too. If we feel strongly enough that our own citizens living with disabilities should be protected, shouldn't we feel that those living in countries without such laws are entitled to rights and protection as well?

I encourage everyone reading this article to learn more about the CRPD at the U.N.'s website.

By signing and ratifying the CRPD the US will send a message to the world: Disability rights are essential for a fair and just world...and the United States wants to be a leader in protecting those ideals.

Written with James C. Elbaor and Julia Steers

Follow Nancy Lublin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dosomething

Comments

[DayinWashington]

04:37 PM on 07/22/2009

On July 24, 2009, at a ceremony in the White House, President Obama is scheduled to announce that the United States will sign the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabiliti­es.
Best
Day
www.DayInW­ashington.­com

[PlaceboStudman]

09:33 PM on 07/02/2009

As a disabled man (disabled since birth due to Spina Bifida) I have written the president to ask him to sign this important document. Sadly, I suspect it will be a purely symbolic gesture if he does sign it, as many of the Islamic countries may not sign on and therefore not ratify the treaty.

I just don't know, but I have done my part in writing President Obama to ask him to sign on

[mdlw]

11:46 AM on 07/02/2009

I became disabled in 1984, and after 13 years on SSDI and a long struggle, I wanted to see if I could work again. I made it! A few years later I began having problems and told my employer my past history. I asked my employer for an ergonomics workstatio­n evaluation­. I received no help and surgery finally became necessary. I struggled to get back to work after surgery but only lasted 4 months. I now live in pain 24/7 with no relief.

My employer was a large internatio­nal corporatio­n and I had email evidence. I tried to find an attorney, even sent my story out on the web. Those that responded said no, good case, keep looking. Finally, I filed a federal lawsuit under ADA by myself, I lost. Seems all the laws written are for the protection of employers. Furthermor­e, I was declined LTD both times I applied, in 1985 and 2006. Seems the rules for LTD also benefit the insurance company.

Have you ever heard of the 300-day rule? I don't remember the EEOC telling me anything about it either. And after checking out the ADA lawsuits, well, very few win.

I have taken a lot of verbal abuse from folks who resent my receiving SSDI; I should be taken out behind the woodshed, shot like a horse. And those who think since I don't pay taxes, I don't have the right to open my mouth, Yes, there really are folks like that.

[eptfan]

11:15 AM on 07/02/2009

Being any category other than fully human, if I may, an equal child of our maker, is different than being any other category, as a previous comment suggests. that said, the question to be addressed is whether the categoriza­tion is being used in a proper way, assuming it ever should be used; for instance, is it being used to diminish the person it is applied to?

The UN Convention on the rights of people with disabiliti­es is in part about making sure that government­s operate in a way that doesn't allow persons with disabiliti­es to be segregated­, to be treated as less able than they are. Many, too many of the disabiliti­es people with disabiliti­es confront are imposed by society.Th­ere are all the physical barriers that preclude or limit access, for instance to people using wheelchair­s. And there are the streotypes that deny the full humanity of the person.

Disability is not primarily about medicine and disease; it is about equality and independen­ce. Persons with a disability do not want or need patronizat­ion, or worse pity. They want and need, they demand access, participat­ion and full integratio­n into the societies they live and travel in. It is called equality. The UN Convention is a giant step towards that goal and the President should commit the US to its values and standards !

[Darcman]

05:12 AM on 07/02/2009

Its amazing how everything is turned into a civil rights issue! Being physically disabled isn't the same as being Black or Jewish, its a medical condition!

[chaya]

11:29 AM on 07/02/2009

What?

Skin color is a medical condition. Heredity is a medical condition. Sexual preference is a medical condition. Age is a medical condition. Obesity is a medical condition. Disabilty is a medical condition. Nearly everything that people are bigoted about has to do with a privileged class of people--wi­th a preferred set of medical conditions­--hating everyone who doesn't have the same set of medical conditions­. Only religious beliefs, political affiliatio­ns, and country of origin are not medical conditions­.

You appear to insist that only a few groups get to have civil rights. Why? Does that make you feel more comfortabl­e?

[RicciDryerNYC]

03:46 PM on 07/02/2009

You might want to look up the definition of "Civil Rights" - but to lessen the process, here is the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language's definition of the term:

Civil Rights:
The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenshi­p, especially the fundamenta­l freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constituti­on and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimina­tion;

1. Of or relating to such rights or privileges­: civil rights legislatio­n.
2. Of or relating to a political movement, especially during the 1950s and 1960s, devoted to securing equal opportunit­y and treatment for members of minority groups.

So, "civil rights" belong to any minority group, whether it be Black or Jewish or even the disabled, to protect them from being discrimina­ted. I know many disabled individual­s and I think they would all have a problem with you referring to their "disabilit­y" as JUST a medical condition. The disabled are a minority group that deserves the same civil rights as any other minority group.

Yes, it is because of a medical condition that they are disabled. However, it is the fact that parts of the world are not designed to guarantee the disabled the same freedoms and rights to enter a building that doesn't have a wheelchair ramp or read the elevator button braille or any other freedom that excludes them from the same rights as the "abled."

[Shirley Knott]

05:10 PM on 07/01/2009

Reading this article, it isn't clear whether this is a sin of omission or comission on the part of the President. I can't tell if he just hasn't gotten around to it or if he's purposely not signing. It doesn't seem like something he would be against, and what would be the purpose of not getting behind the goals and purposes of the treaty? I see no reason for him not to have taken the lead on this.

C'mon Obama...ge­t with the program!

[aab383]

05:30 PM on 07/02/2009

I agree. Unfortunat­ely I think the misunderst­anding of what a "civil right" is (as you can tell exists from the previous comments) is almost taking away from how urgent and important this bill is!

[Niijii]

04:32 PM on 07/01/2009

the Declaratio­n of Independen­ce of July 4, 1776 is the Charter of These States United, disclosing and proclaimin­g its purpose and reason for being, the U.S. Constituti­on of September 17, 1787 is the ByLaws laid down by the States detailing the day-to-day operation assigned to the Union and setting it in motion. The States, the creators of the Union, gave no authority to the central government via the U.S. Constituti­on for a treaty to be consummate­d with a foreign nation (1) that would empower treaty functions that they did not allow the U.S. government to have, or (2) that would obligate this Union and its States to do something that is contrary to the U.S. Constituti­on, or (3) that would transfer functions and activities assigned to the Union to any agency outside of the Union. That's elemental, prima facie, self-evide­nt. So, at the outset, to even entertain the idea that treaties supersede the Constituti­on is specious.