Including Deaf Culture and Linguistic Rights

Autor/a: KAUPPINEN, Liisa; JOKINEN, Markku
Año: 2014
Editorial: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014
Tipo de código: Copyright
Soporte: Digital




It was rather disappointing, however, to review the first draft Mexico had prepared, particularly because it had no reference to sign language(s). While perhaps well intended, from the point of view of DPOs it was much weaker than existing instruments. For instance, sign language was mentioned in the 1993 Standard Rules, but not at all in the proposed text. Furthermore, the proposed text was drafted as a social declaration and not a document that resembled any existing international human rights treaties. A revised draft was, therefore, prepared during the meeting to be further developed at the first AHC session. However, the path for the discussion on this new text, contrary to expectations, was not straightforward. As political power was at stake, Mexico (which viewed itself as the lead state in the discussion on disability rights) again put forward its own draft, prepared for the initial expert meeting rather than the updated text proposal. Following the outcry from DPOs and several government parties, however, the AHC decided to establish a Working Group to develop a working text—a draft that was the basis for negotiations in all subsequent AHC sessions. This initial experience strengthened the sense that participation of persons with disabilities in the drafting process would be critical if any substantive results were to be achieved. Thus, the WFD remained an active participant through the rest of the process as well. Nonnegotiable Key Points While the WFD has been involved in drafting many provisions in the CRPD, the input has been particularly imperative in the promotion of sign language.

En: M. Sabatello and M. Schulze (eds.), Human rights and disability advocacy, pp. 131-145.