Abstract
Many rationales for freedom of opinion and freedom of expression tend to style them as ‘super-freedoms’ with respect to the enablement of other fundamental rights. Despite the importance of the rights to freedom of expression and opinion, persons with disabilities face numerous barriers to their full enjoyment. Article 21 of the CRPD explicitly recognizes rights to freedom of opinion and expression by tailoring these established rights to circumstances and abilities particular to persons with disabilities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
CCPR, General comment No. 34. Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 Sep 2011, para. 1.
- 2.
Lord et al. (2012), pp. 46–47.
- 3.
CESCR, General Comment No. 5: Persons with Disabilities, E/1995/22, 9 Dec 1994, para. 37. Available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/4538838f0.html. Accessed 1 July 2015.
- 4.
As observed by Mc Gonagle (2015), p. 32, since 2000, all General Comments adopted by the CESCR have contained reference to right to information. «Some of these references describe the interrelationship of right to information with other human rights and the enabling role it can play in the realization of other human rights. Some of the references focus on the importance of accessibility of information concerning particular human rights, both in terms of its availability and its usability (e.g. in particular languages or formats).» See also Donders (2015).
- 5.
Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, Accessibility to Information and Communication: Perspectives of the Visually Impaired, Background conference document prepared by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, A/AC.265/2006/CRP.3, 11 Jan 2006. Available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc7bkgrndaccess.htm. Accessed 1 Jul 2015.
- 6.
Ellis and Goggin (2015), p. 53.
- 7.
See Article 2 [Definitions] in this Commentary.
- 8.
CRPD Committee, General Comment No. 2 (2014). Article 9: Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, 22 May 2014, para. 27.
- 9.
Koch (2009), p. 72.
- 10.
Morten Haugen (2014), p. 41.
- 11.
Schulze (2010), p. 120.
- 12.
E/1995/22, cit., para. 11.
- 13.
Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is an umbrella term that encompasses the communication methods used to supplement or replace speech or writing for those with impairments in the production or comprehension of spoken or written language. It can be distinguished two kinds of AAC systems. The unaided communication uses no equipment and includes sign and body language. The aided approaches use external tools and can range from paper and pencil to communication books or boards to devices that produce voice output (speech generating devices) and/or written output.
- 14.
CRPD Committee, General comment on Article 9: Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, 22 may 2014, para. 5.
- 15.
Varney (2015), p. 179.
- 16.
CRPD Committee, Guidelines on Treaty-Specific Document to Be Submitted by States Parties under Article 35, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD/C/2/3, 18 Nov 2009, p. 12.
- 17.
For a further analysis of WAI standards, http://www.w3.org/WAI/. Accessed 1 Jul 2015.
- 18.
Wilcox et al. (2012), p. 374.
- 19.
CCPR/C/GC/34, cit., para. 12.
- 20.
Batterbury (2012).
- 21.
De Meulder (2014), p. 14.
- 22.
De Meulder (2015), pp. 499–504, distinguishes five categories of the most common legal recognition of sign languages : (1) constitutional recognition; (2) recognition by means of general language legislation; (3) recognition by means of a sign language law or act; (4) recognition by means of a sign language law or act, including other means of communication; (5) recognition by means of legislation on the functioning of the national language council.
- 23.
Probably such shortcoming is linked to the way deaf communities are perceived. De Meulder (2015), p. 499, notes that «because of the dual-category membership of deaf people as both persons with a disability and members of culture-linguistic minority groups, policymakers tend to categorize deaf and sign language issues (only) in disability legislation.»
- 24.
CRPD Committee, Concluding observations on the initial periodic report of Hungary, CRPD/C/HUN/CO/1, 22 Oct 2012, paras. 7–8; Concluding observations on the initial report of Austria, CRPD/C/AUT/CO/1, 30 Sep 2013, para. 5.
- 25.
CRPD Committee, Concluding observations on the initial report of Australia, CRPD/C/AUS/CO/1, 4 Oct 2013, para. 44; Concluding observations on the initial report of El Salvador, CRPD/C/SLV/CO/1, 8 Oct 2013, para. 46.
- 26.
CRPD Committee, CRPD/C/AUS/CO/1, cit., para. 44; CRPD/C/SLV/CO/1, cit., para. 46, Concluding observations on the initial report of Paraguay, CRPD/C/PRY/CO/1, 15 May 2013, para. 54; Concluding observations on the initial report of the Republic of Korea, CRPD/C/KOR/CO/1, 29 Oct 2014, para. 42.
- 27.
CRPD Committee, CRPD/C/PRY/CO/1, cit., para. 53.
- 28.
CRPD Committee, CRPD/C/SLV/CO/1, cit., para. 46; Concluding observations on the initial report of China, CRPD/C/CHN/CO/1, 15 Oct 2012, para. 72; Concluding observations on the initial report of Austria, CRPD/C/AUT/CO/1, 30 Sep 2013, para. 43; Concluding observations on the initial report of New Zealand, CRPD/C/NZL/CO/1, 31 Oct 2014, para. 42.
- 29.
CRPD Committee, CRPD/C/GC/2, cit., para. 21.
- 30.
So far, a communication on Article 21 of the CRPD concerning the use of sign language has been brought before the CRPD Committee. The case concerned the practice of the Sheriff of New South Wales in Australia of excluding deaf persons from the jury. The applicant claimed that the domestic authorities’ refusal to permit Auslan (Australian Sign Language) interpretation of courtroom proceedings and jury deliberations constitutes a violation, inter alia, of his freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others through a form of communication of his choice, grounding the claim on the argument that Auslan interpretation should be seen as a ‘form of communication’ of the person’s choice and an ‘official interaction’ within the meaning of Article 21 of the Convention.
Being the applicant not yet personally selected to perform jury duties, the CRPD Committee found that the author cannot claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 1, par. 1, of the Optional Protocol and consequently declared the inadmissibility of the case. CRPD Committee, AM v Australia.
Table of Cases
CRPD Committee 27.03.2015, AM v Australia, CRPD/C/13/D/12/2013
References
Batterbury SCE (2012) Language justice for sign language peoples: the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Lang Policy 11:253–272
De Meulder M (2014) The UNCRPD and sign language peoples. In: Pabsch A (ed) UNCRPD implementation in Europe – a deaf perspective. Article 29: participation in political and public life. European Union of the Deaf, Brussels, pp 12–28
De Meulder M (2015) The legal recognition of sign languages. Sign Lang Stud 15:498–506
Donders Y (2015) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: accessibility and right to information. In: McGonagle T, Donders Y (eds) The United Nations and freedom of expression and information. Critical perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 89–120
Ellis K, Goggin G (2015) Disability and the media. Palgrave, London
Koch IE (2009) From invisibility to indivisibility: the international Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In: Arnadóttir OM, Quinn G (eds) The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian perspectives. Martinus Nijoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 67–77
Lord J, Guernsey K, Balfe J, Karr V, de Franco A (2012) Human rights: yes! action and advocacy on the rights of persons with disabilities. In: Flowers N (ed) Human rights education series, vol 6, 2nd ed. University of Minnesota Human Rights Center. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/hreduseries/HR-YES/Human%20Rights%20YES%20Final%20PDF.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2015
Mc Gonagle T (2015) The development of freedom of expression and information within the UN: leaps and bounds or fits and starts? In: Mc Gonagle T, Donders Y (eds) The United Nations and freedom of expression and information. Critical perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–52
Morten Haugen H (2014) Is internet access a human right – for everyone, or only for persons with disabilities? Kritisk Juss 40:26–51
Schulze M (2010) Understanding the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. http://www.handicap-international.fr/fileadmin/documents/publications/HICRPDManual.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2015
Varney E (2015) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: ensuring full and equal access to information. In: Mc Gonagle T, Donders Y (eds) The United Nations and freedom of expression and information. Critical perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 171–207
Wilcox S, Krausneker V, Armstrong D (2012) Language policies and the deaf community. In: Spolsky B (ed) Cambridge handbook of language policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York, pp 374–395
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cera, R. (2017). Article 21 [Freedom of Expression and Opinion, and Access to Information]. In: Della Fina, V., Cera, R., Palmisano, G. (eds) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43790-3_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43790-3_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43788-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43790-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)