O? Is it a curse to be as a blind girl in this country? On 2/9/14, Ajay Arora <ajayaror...@gmail.com> wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Samarthyam <samarthyain...@yahoo.com> > Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:11:54 -0800 (PST) > Subject: Serious infirmities on the rights of women with disabilities > To: Santosh Kumar Rungta <santoshkumar.run...@gmail.com>, Deepak > Tandiya <deepak.tandi...@gmail.com>, J L Kaul <aicbde...@yahoo.com>, > "aifdd...@yahoo.com" <aifdd...@yahoo.com>, "ajayaror...@gmail.com" > <ajayaror...@gmail.com>, "A.K. Mittal 2" <akmit...@rediffmail.com>, > "amarj...@del2.vsnl.net.in" <amarj...@del2.vsnl.net.in>, > "anugili...@gmail.com" <anugili...@gmail.com>, Bhushan Punani > <blinab...@bsnl.in>, K Ramkrishna <contact.ramkris...@gmail.com>, J P > Gadkari <jpgadk...@gmail.com> > > It is pertinent to note that in the 20 "non negotiables" that went > from the "Joint Forum for Disability Rights" - just a reiteration of > Article 6 was asked for. Even this was not incorporated. Clearly, the > rights of women with disabilities were negotiable, after all. > > We request everyone to intervene and help prevent this Bill from being > passed in its current form on Monday, 10th February. > > > A note on women with disabilities, and what this Bill means to them > > There is a difference between inclusion, and empowerment. A healthy > scattering of "women" around a Statute does not make it meaningful for > women, and even less so when we speak of women with disabilities. > > Women with disabilities were missing from the 1995 Act, and so during > the drafting process for the new Bill, which started in 2010, the > concerns of women and children, particularly girls with disabilities, > was a huge concern. Sadly, the Bill as approved ultimately by Cabinet, > as well as in the notified amendments does not address these concerns > adequately. The UNCRPD lays down very specific obligations of the > State while discussing the multiple discrimination faced by women with > disabilities. States are obliged to take measures to ensure the full > and equal enjoyment by them of all human rights and fundamental > freedoms. States are also obliged to take all appropriate measures to > ensure the full development, advancement and empowerment of women, for > the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of the > human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Convention. > The Bill fails to acknowledge these beyond a cursory "hat tip" > in Section 3 (2)which says that the appropriate Government shall take > special measures to protect the rights of women and children with > disability [sic] and also take steps to utilize the capacity of > persons with disabilities by providing appropriate environment, and is > limited to "protection" of the rights and not empowerment. The right > under Article 6 is inexplicably relegated to sharing a subsection with > an obligation to utilize capacity. > > One of the greatest threats to women with disabilities is the failure > to recognize the right to legal capacity of all persons with > disabilities and to recognize them as persons before the law. Women > with disabilities are much more prone to being victimized and deprived > of their property rights because of such provisions, amounting to > "civil death". Especially in family courts, terms like "unsound mind" > are thrown about very easily, and it was reported that a staggering > 40% of cases of divorce were on the grounds of unsound mind before > family courts in Chennai. The declaration of unsoundness of mind by > one court often creates a domino effect to deprive women of their > rights - to their children, to maintenance, to alimony, to their > inheritance, and even to personal liberty. > > There are also serious violations of the reproductive rights of women > with disabilities as will be seen when in the context of Section 106 > (f) which allows for termination of pregnancies without consent of > women with "severe" disabilities - what is a "severe case of > disability", can this opinion be of any "registered medical > practitioner", and why is the opinion of the guardian being sought and > not that of the woman concerned? While Section 3 (4) of the Medical > Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 is violative of the UNCRPD by > allowing for such terminations in case a woman is "mentally ill", this > Bill, let alone amending it, actually extends the removal of legal > capacity with regard to decisions of child bearing to all women with > disabilities. This also overturns case law (Suchita Srivasatava, > Supreme Court, 2009) with regard to legal capacity of women with > disabilities to make reproductive choices. > > The Bill states that no person with disability shall be subject to any > medical procedure which leads to infertility without his or her free > consent, in Section 9 (2). This section is also problematic because > the test is a "procedure which will lead to infertility" and not > procedures/medications which could possibly lead to infertility. For > persons with psychosocial disabilities, who will be placed under > guardianship under Section 13 of the proposed Bill, the question of > their own consent does not arise as their guardian, be it limited or > plenary, is empowered to take "all legally binding decisions" on their > behalf. > > The Bill provides for reservations in Special Schemes and Development > Programmes under Section 39 with preference to women with > disabilities. Unfortunately, as the Bill does not recognize absolute > legal capacity for persons with disabilities under Section 12, 13 and > 14 of the Bill, even the benefits for women with disabilities are > pointless because of the fetters on legal capacity which will prevent > them from holding property, assets etc. in their own names, especially > if, as the amendment says "limited guardianship is the norm". > > The provisions which support institutionalization under Chapter IX of > the Bill, as well as there being no express bar against > institutionalization without consent of the person, will hurt women > with disabilities more, as they are more prone to being > institutionalized. Again, while looking at the freedom against abuse > and exploitation, under Section 6, there is no monitoring mechanism to > look into the instances of violence which occur in institutions. It is > well documented that women in institutions for persons with > disabilities are routinely and regularly abused. This Bill does > nothing to redress this situation. > > The right to family provisions are also extremely flawed and will hurt > both women and children with disabilities. The right under the UNCRPD > for all persons with disabilities who are of marriageable age to marry > and to found a family on the basis of free and full consent of the > intending spouses is not recognized under Section 8 of the Bill on > "home and family". In addition, whatever exists of this right is > gravely threatened by the failure of the Bill to categorically grant > legal capacity to all persons with disabilities. Those under a system > of guardianship will still be unable to exercise this right. > > Under the UNCRPD, in no case shall a child be separated from parents > on the basis of a disability of either the child or one or both of the > parents. The right of parents with disabilities to retain care of > their child is not reiterated in the Bill, under Section 8, which is > problematic because the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, > 2000 deems children who have a parent or guardian who is unfit or > incapacitated to exercise control over the child to be "children in > need of care and protection" under Section 2 (d) (iv) and therefore > the child may be under the consideration of the Child Welfare > Committee for placement in accordance with the law. An unequivocal > statement of the right to parenthood was the need of the Bill. > > Section 8 also in fact allows for children with disabilities to be > taken away from their parents on the ground of disability alone, if a > Court orders so, which is clearly violative of the UNCRPD and the CRC. > It also modifies the position of the Juvenile Justice Act again, which > identifies a child with disability in Section 2 (d) (iii) as "a child > in need of care and protection"only if it has no one to support or > look after. > > The stress of the Bill, the media, and debates on the amendment is on > the allegedly beneficial provisions with regard to reservations in > Government Employment. > > > The applicability of the statutes mentioned in this discussion, and > many others that discriminate against persons with disabilities, are > protected by Section 110 which says that the provisions of this Act > shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, the provisions of > any other law for the time being in force. Therefore all laws which > exist and which are derogatory to the rights of women and children > with disabilities, are protected, and may actually override the > provisions under this Bill under certain circumstances. Therefore, the > Bill not only creates its own problems for women with disabilities - > it also upholds existing ones. > > Attached: RPD Bill. See notified amendments in hyperlink above. > > Inputs from Amba and Women with Disabilities India Network > > Anjlee Agarwal > > Executive Director | Access Consultant > > > * (M) +91-9810558321 Telefax: +91-11-41019389 > * B-181, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi, India > * samarthyain...@yahoo.com > * Website: www.samarthyam.com > * FB: https://www.facebook.com/samarthyam?ref=tn_tnmn > * Blog: http://samarthyaindia.blogspot.in/ > > Universal Design | Architectural Access | Research | Training | Adaptive > Design > > LET'S MAKE THE WORLD ACCESSIBLE > > >>________________________________ >> From: Santosh Kumar Rungta <santoshkumar.run...@gmail.com> >>To: Dipendra Manocha <dipendra.mano...@gmail.com>; Deepak Tandiya >> <deepak.tandi...@gmail.com>; National Platform For The Rights of the >> Disabled (NPRD) <nprd...@gmail.com>; J L Kaul <aicbde...@yahoo.com>; >> aifdd...@yahoo.com; ajayaror...@gmail.com; A.K. Mittal 2 >> <akmit...@rediffmail.com>; amarj...@del2.vsnl.net.in; >> anugili...@gmail.com; Bhushan Punani <blinab...@bsnl.in>; K Ramkrishna >> <contact.ramkris...@gmail.com>; Dheepakh PS <dheepakh1...@gmail.com>; >> Andhjan Kalyan Trust Dhoraji <aktrust....@gmail.com>; Samarthyam India >> <samarthyain...@yahoo.com>; J P Gadkari <jpgadk...@gmail.com>; >> kbs....@rediffmail.com; Nationalfederation Oftheblind >> <nfbodi...@gmail.com> >>Sent: Friday, 7 February 2014 1:22 PM >>Subject: reference of RPD Bill to the Select Committee by Rajya Sabha after >> introduction. >> >> >> >>Dear colleagues, >> >>Let me first express my gratitude to you all for remaining united on the >> issue of Bill on the rights of Persons with disabilities. I would like to >> share with you with happiness that our joint efforts have yielded results >> and the Bill introduced by the Govt. has been referred to the Select >> Committee signifying our victory. I now proposed that we should have a >> joint meeting of all the representatives of different disabilities to >> examine the Bill as referred to the Select committee and formulate our >> common stand on each clause of the Bill. I intend to do it in the first >> or second week of the March, 2014 in consultation with you all. IN view >> of this I have decided to suspend the NFB's agitation which was initiated >> on 28.1.14. >> >> >>With regards, >> >> >>S.K. Rungta >>General Secretary, NFB India >> >> >> > > > -- > Ajay Arora phd research scholar > Centre for the Study of Law and Governance > JNU > Nelson Mandela Marg > New Delhi India > > Time to meet up again! > Register for AccessIndia Convention 2014: > http://accessindia.org.in/harish/convention.htm > > > > Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of > mobile phones / Tabs on: > http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > > Search for old postings at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ > > To unsubscribe send a message to > accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in > with the subject unsubscribe. > > To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please > visit the list home page at > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > > Disclaimer: > 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the > person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; > > 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails > sent through this mailing list.. >
-- Cheers, Radha "Everything you want in your life is waiting for you an inch outside your comfort zone, and an inch inside your effort." Time to meet up again! Register for AccessIndia Convention 2014: http://accessindia.org.in/harish/convention.htm Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list..
