Pub Date : 2024-03-13DOI: 10.1177/13582291241237987
Daryl WJ Yang
Article 25(e) of the CRPD obliges State Parties to “prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities in the provision of health insurance… which shall be provided in a fair and reasonable manner”. Equal access to health insurance is critical in ensuring that persons with disabilities can enjoy the highest attainable standard of health. However, the scope and substance of Article 25(e) have not been examined in existing scholarship on the CRPD. Standing at the intersection of international human rights law, disability studies and insurance law, this article fills the lacuna by offering a balanced interpretation of Article 25(e) that aims to strike a balance between actuarial fairness and the CRPD’s prohibition against all forms of disability discrimination. Greater clarity in the interpretation of Article 25(e) would therefore assist State Parties in properly complying with their obligations under the CRPD. Civil society, including disabled people and their representative organizations, would also be empowered to hold their governments to account where the laws and policies in the country have fallen short of what is expected under Article 25(e).
{"title":"Disability discrimination in the provision of health insurance: Article 25(e) of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities","authors":"Daryl WJ Yang","doi":"10.1177/13582291241237987","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291241237987","url":null,"abstract":"Article 25(e) of the CRPD obliges State Parties to “prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities in the provision of health insurance… which shall be provided in a fair and reasonable manner”. Equal access to health insurance is critical in ensuring that persons with disabilities can enjoy the highest attainable standard of health. However, the scope and substance of Article 25(e) have not been examined in existing scholarship on the CRPD. Standing at the intersection of international human rights law, disability studies and insurance law, this article fills the lacuna by offering a balanced interpretation of Article 25(e) that aims to strike a balance between actuarial fairness and the CRPD’s prohibition against all forms of disability discrimination. Greater clarity in the interpretation of Article 25(e) would therefore assist State Parties in properly complying with their obligations under the CRPD. Civil society, including disabled people and their representative organizations, would also be empowered to hold their governments to account where the laws and policies in the country have fallen short of what is expected under Article 25(e).","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"152 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140155648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-30DOI: 10.1177/13582291231199371
Charlotte Bendall, Gemma Mitchell
Shared Parental Leave has the potential to tackle a traditional gendered binary of roles within the family, by encouraging more men to care. Such legal provisions can operate to shape behaviour, both in terms of what they permit practically, but also from a normative perspective, conveying ideas around the best way to perform ‘family.’ However, placing particular focus on the latter, we assert that Shared Parental Leave does not speak to working-class parents. We initially consider whether the ‘heteronormative’ family may, in itself, be a middle-class problem, before highlighting the incompatibility of legislative ambitions of ‘equal parenting’ with working-class ways of living. ‘Equal parenting,’ as embodied within the legislation, imposes ideals that sit at odds with working-class people’s attitudes, whilst assuming a two-parent family which is often incongruous with working-class family forms. Ultimately, we favour a more holistic approach towards breaking down ‘heteronormative’ notions of women’s and men’s roles, to enable people to make more meaningful choices about their lives that are not constrained by gender.
{"title":"The shared parental leave framework: Failing to fit working-class families?","authors":"Charlotte Bendall, Gemma Mitchell","doi":"10.1177/13582291231199371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231199371","url":null,"abstract":"Shared Parental Leave has the potential to tackle a traditional gendered binary of roles within the family, by encouraging more men to care. Such legal provisions can operate to shape behaviour, both in terms of what they permit practically, but also from a normative perspective, conveying ideas around the best way to perform ‘family.’ However, placing particular focus on the latter, we assert that Shared Parental Leave does not speak to working-class parents. We initially consider whether the ‘heteronormative’ family may, in itself, be a middle-class problem, before highlighting the incompatibility of legislative ambitions of ‘equal parenting’ with working-class ways of living. ‘Equal parenting,’ as embodied within the legislation, imposes ideals that sit at odds with working-class people’s attitudes, whilst assuming a two-parent family which is often incongruous with working-class family forms. Ultimately, we favour a more holistic approach towards breaking down ‘heteronormative’ notions of women’s and men’s roles, to enable people to make more meaningful choices about their lives that are not constrained by gender.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42154871","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-29DOI: 10.1177/13582291231199370
J. D. Mujuzi
Article 10(1) of the Constitution of Namibian provides for the right to equality before the law. Article 10(2) prohibits discrimination on several grounds. The Constitution of Namibia, unlike that of South Africa (1996), does not prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. However, unlike the Constitutions of some African countries such as Uganda, Seychelles, Kenya and Zimbabwe, the Constitution of Namibia does not prohibit same-sex marriages. Namibian law does not expressly prohibit same-sex marriages. However, in Immigration Selection Board v Frank (2001), the Namibian Supreme Court held that same-sex marriages were not allowed in Namibia. In Digashu and Another v GRN and Others; Seiler-Lilles and Another v GRN and Others, dated 16 May 2023, the Supreme Court, by majority, invoked Article 10(1) and common law to overrule its decision in Immigration Selection Board v Frank and to hold that Namibian law should recognise same-sex marriages entered into abroad. However, the court declined to express its opinion on whether discrimination on the ground of sexual-orientation is prohibited in Namibia. In this note, the author argues, inter alia, that the list of grounds under Article 10(2) is closed and that explains why the court did not rule that the appellants had been discriminated against based on their sexual orientation; it was unlikely for the government to succeed had it relied on the argument of public policy as the basis for its refusal to recognise foreign same-sex marriages; and that the court unconsciously developed common law on the issue of foreign marriages.
《纳米比亚宪法》第10(1)条规定法律面前人人平等的权利。第10(2)条禁止基于若干理由的歧视。纳米比亚宪法与南非宪法(1996年)不同，不禁止基于性取向的歧视。然而，与乌干达、塞舌尔、肯尼亚和津巴布韦等一些非洲国家的宪法不同，纳米比亚的宪法并不禁止同性婚姻。纳米比亚法律并没有明文禁止同性婚姻。然而，在移民选拔委员会诉弗兰克案(2001年)中，纳米比亚最高法院裁定，纳米比亚不允许同性婚姻。《迪加舒和另一个人》vs《GRN和其他人》在2023年5月16日的Seiler-Lilles and Another v GRN and Others案中，最高法院以多数票援引第10条第1款和普通法，推翻了其在移民选拔委员会诉Frank案中的决定，并认为纳米比亚法律应承认在国外缔结的同性婚姻。然而，法院拒绝就纳米比亚是否禁止基于性取向的歧视发表意见。在这份说明中，发件人除其他外认为，第10条第(2)款规定的理由清单已经结束，这解释了为什么法院没有裁定上诉人因其性取向而受到歧视;如果政府依靠公共政策作为拒绝承认外国同性婚姻的依据，那么它就不太可能成功;法院在不知不觉中发展了关于外国婚姻问题的普通法。
{"title":"Equality before the law and the recognition of same-sex foreign marriages in Namibia: Digashu and another v GRN and others; Seiler-Lilles and another v GRN and others [2023] NASC 14","authors":"J. D. Mujuzi","doi":"10.1177/13582291231199370","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231199370","url":null,"abstract":"Article 10(1) of the Constitution of Namibian provides for the right to equality before the law. Article 10(2) prohibits discrimination on several grounds. The Constitution of Namibia, unlike that of South Africa (1996), does not prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. However, unlike the Constitutions of some African countries such as Uganda, Seychelles, Kenya and Zimbabwe, the Constitution of Namibia does not prohibit same-sex marriages. Namibian law does not expressly prohibit same-sex marriages. However, in Immigration Selection Board v Frank (2001), the Namibian Supreme Court held that same-sex marriages were not allowed in Namibia. In Digashu and Another v GRN and Others; Seiler-Lilles and Another v GRN and Others, dated 16 May 2023, the Supreme Court, by majority, invoked Article 10(1) and common law to overrule its decision in Immigration Selection Board v Frank and to hold that Namibian law should recognise same-sex marriages entered into abroad. However, the court declined to express its opinion on whether discrimination on the ground of sexual-orientation is prohibited in Namibia. In this note, the author argues, inter alia, that the list of grounds under Article 10(2) is closed and that explains why the court did not rule that the appellants had been discriminated against based on their sexual orientation; it was unlikely for the government to succeed had it relied on the argument of public policy as the basis for its refusal to recognise foreign same-sex marriages; and that the court unconsciously developed common law on the issue of foreign marriages.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42850857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1177/13582291231194226
L. Carlson, James Hand, Panos Kapotas
{"title":"IJDL Editorial - September 2023","authors":"L. Carlson, James Hand, Panos Kapotas","doi":"10.1177/13582291231194226","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231194226","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"23 1","pages":"183 - 184"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42662757","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-29DOI: 10.1177/13582291231187060
M. Yoshitoshi, Goro Horiguchi, Kiriko Takahashi
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) guarantees the right of all children to receive inclusive education and requires reasonable accommodations be provided accordingly. Japan, which ratified the CRPD in 2014, now positions the social model of disability at the core of its domestic laws and, in schools, we see more provisions of reasonable accommodations for children with disabilities. In this article, we analyze the very first judgments delivered on reasonable accommodations for children with medical care needs since Japan’s ratification of the CRPD. The case was closed by simply recognizing the “financial limitations” of the municipal government and school while excessively emphasizing the parents’ “duty to ensure children to receive general education.” Such a judgment did not sufficiently reflect the intent of the CRPD and relevant domestic laws guaranteeing inclusive education as a “human right” for children. We expect an inversion of this case in the future.
{"title":"Need for a paradigm shift in supporting children with medical care needs in Japan: Legal conflicts between scope and limits of reasonable accommodation in schools","authors":"M. Yoshitoshi, Goro Horiguchi, Kiriko Takahashi","doi":"10.1177/13582291231187060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231187060","url":null,"abstract":"The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) guarantees the right of all children to receive inclusive education and requires reasonable accommodations be provided accordingly. Japan, which ratified the CRPD in 2014, now positions the social model of disability at the core of its domestic laws and, in schools, we see more provisions of reasonable accommodations for children with disabilities. In this article, we analyze the very first judgments delivered on reasonable accommodations for children with medical care needs since Japan’s ratification of the CRPD. The case was closed by simply recognizing the “financial limitations” of the municipal government and school while excessively emphasizing the parents’ “duty to ensure children to receive general education.” Such a judgment did not sufficiently reflect the intent of the CRPD and relevant domestic laws guaranteeing inclusive education as a “human right” for children. We expect an inversion of this case in the future.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"23 1","pages":"283 - 294"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46442993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-15DOI: 10.1177/13582291231176513
Catriona Cannon
The interplay of religion and gender is a relevant factor in the labour market disadvantage experienced by Muslim women. Despite widespread recognition of the importance of addressing disadvantage through an intersectional lens, the domestic equality law framework in Britain continues to adopt fixed and discrete classifications of status inequality, undermining protection for Muslim women in the workplace. This paper uses doctrinal and socio-legal method to expose the disregard in the application of British equality law in its international human rights context to the interaction of religion with gender and to present opportunities for development through case law of an intersectional analysis of disadvantage. After highlighting the labour market disadvantage experienced by Muslim women and making the case for an intersectional response, the paper will assess the application of the British equality law framework in relevant cases and will highlight its contribution to the emergence of a ‘conflict’ narrative. This paper will argue that there is, however, scope in human rights, proportionality and harm analyses to highlight experiences of discrimination at the vector of religion and gender. It will conclude that litigants who avail of these opportunities can contribute to development of law and policy which better reflects lived experience.
{"title":"Muslim women in the workplace and the Equality Act 2010: Opportunities for an intersectional analysis","authors":"Catriona Cannon","doi":"10.1177/13582291231176513","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231176513","url":null,"abstract":"The interplay of religion and gender is a relevant factor in the labour market disadvantage experienced by Muslim women. Despite widespread recognition of the importance of addressing disadvantage through an intersectional lens, the domestic equality law framework in Britain continues to adopt fixed and discrete classifications of status inequality, undermining protection for Muslim women in the workplace. This paper uses doctrinal and socio-legal method to expose the disregard in the application of British equality law in its international human rights context to the interaction of religion with gender and to present opportunities for development through case law of an intersectional analysis of disadvantage. After highlighting the labour market disadvantage experienced by Muslim women and making the case for an intersectional response, the paper will assess the application of the British equality law framework in relevant cases and will highlight its contribution to the emergence of a ‘conflict’ narrative. This paper will argue that there is, however, scope in human rights, proportionality and harm analyses to highlight experiences of discrimination at the vector of religion and gender. It will conclude that litigants who avail of these opportunities can contribute to development of law and policy which better reflects lived experience.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"23 1","pages":"185 - 215"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48364893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-29DOI: 10.1177/13582291231176518
Enrique Devesa Carpio, Mar Devesa Carpio, Inmaculada Domínguez Fabián, Borja Encinas Goenechea, Robert Meneu Gaya
In Spain, part-time work is considered female, given that 73% of this type of work contract is carried out by women. The conditions for accessing and calculating the retirement pension for part-time workers have been modified in recent years. This has been the result of several judgments of European courts that conclude the existence of indirect gender discrimination. This paper analyses the measures that have been regulated after the aforementioned judgments to assess whether indirect gender discrimination has disappeared from the social protection system in Spain. This paper highlights the effect of the regulatory changes, some of them since 2019, and points out some pending issues, that if they were carried out, would ensure gender discrimination is effectively eliminated.
{"title":"Part-time work and retirement in Spain, towards a system without gender discrimination","authors":"Enrique Devesa Carpio, Mar Devesa Carpio, Inmaculada Domínguez Fabián, Borja Encinas Goenechea, Robert Meneu Gaya","doi":"10.1177/13582291231176518","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231176518","url":null,"abstract":"In Spain, part-time work is considered female, given that 73% of this type of work contract is carried out by women. The conditions for accessing and calculating the retirement pension for part-time workers have been modified in recent years. This has been the result of several judgments of European courts that conclude the existence of indirect gender discrimination. This paper analyses the measures that have been regulated after the aforementioned judgments to assess whether indirect gender discrimination has disappeared from the social protection system in Spain. This paper highlights the effect of the regulatory changes, some of them since 2019, and points out some pending issues, that if they were carried out, would ensure gender discrimination is effectively eliminated.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"23 1","pages":"216 - 239"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47097978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-15DOI: 10.1177/13582291231173609
Alexander Ian Simmonds
The UK Space Industry Act 2018 has now been supplemented with the new Space Industry Regulations. While examples of Space Tourism grace our screens and newsfeeds on an increasingly regular basis such as William Shatner’s recent voyage (Luscombe, 2021) the UK Regulations also pave the way for ‘human occupants’ (UK Space Industry Regulations, Regulation 2) to experience such a flight (UK Space Agency, 2020). A key part of the regulations pertaining to human occupants is that they must provide ‘informed consent’ before embarking on such a flight. If, as is likely to be the case, future courts are to draw analogies with the current state of medical law in this area, spaceflight operators will have to tread carefully if they are to avoid vitiating any informed consent by ‘bombarding’ any willing human occupant with technical detail prior to their flight (Simmonds, 2020). Whilst this could prove legally problematic for ‘capacitous’ individuals within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, it is likely to be even more so for those who could be deemed, in some aspects of their cognitive ability, to lack capacity. UK Space Legislation as it presently stands faces three problems: 1) There is presently no legal mechanism under UK Space Law to determine capacity. 2) As examples from the Court of Protection indicate, ‘capacity’ is a very nuanced legal concept and individuals who, on the fact of things, may appear to lack capacity as regards potentially risky activities, have been regarded by the Courts as, at least, partially capacitous in respect of certain decisions. Operators may find themselves having to tread a fine line to avoid claims of discrimination. 3) because of point 1) and the state of the Law of Contract as regards contractual relationships entered into by potentially incapacitous individuals, further significant legal problems may present themselves. This paper will focus primarily on the Law in England and Wales but some of the overarching conclusions will be of relevance to all UK jurisdictions.
{"title":"For all (Hu)mankind? The intersection of mental capacity, informed consent and contract law with U.K. space law","authors":"Alexander Ian Simmonds","doi":"10.1177/13582291231173609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231173609","url":null,"abstract":"The UK Space Industry Act 2018 has now been supplemented with the new Space Industry Regulations. While examples of Space Tourism grace our screens and newsfeeds on an increasingly regular basis such as William Shatner’s recent voyage (Luscombe, 2021) the UK Regulations also pave the way for ‘human occupants’ (UK Space Industry Regulations, Regulation 2) to experience such a flight (UK Space Agency, 2020). A key part of the regulations pertaining to human occupants is that they must provide ‘informed consent’ before embarking on such a flight. If, as is likely to be the case, future courts are to draw analogies with the current state of medical law in this area, spaceflight operators will have to tread carefully if they are to avoid vitiating any informed consent by ‘bombarding’ any willing human occupant with technical detail prior to their flight (Simmonds, 2020). Whilst this could prove legally problematic for ‘capacitous’ individuals within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, it is likely to be even more so for those who could be deemed, in some aspects of their cognitive ability, to lack capacity. UK Space Legislation as it presently stands faces three problems: 1) There is presently no legal mechanism under UK Space Law to determine capacity. 2) As examples from the Court of Protection indicate, ‘capacity’ is a very nuanced legal concept and individuals who, on the fact of things, may appear to lack capacity as regards potentially risky activities, have been regarded by the Courts as, at least, partially capacitous in respect of certain decisions. Operators may find themselves having to tread a fine line to avoid claims of discrimination. 3) because of point 1) and the state of the Law of Contract as regards contractual relationships entered into by potentially incapacitous individuals, further significant legal problems may present themselves. This paper will focus primarily on the Law in England and Wales but some of the overarching conclusions will be of relevance to all UK jurisdictions.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"23 1","pages":"240 - 264"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42960134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-15DOI: 10.1177/13582291231174156
Laverne Jacobs
In Canada, access to post-secondary education is guaranteed by a number of domestic instruments. These instruments are: statutory human rights legislation, constitutional law, and accessibility legislation. These guarantees are further bolstered by Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Statutory human rights legislation (or anti-discrimination law) plays the most extensive role in controlling the discretionary power that colleges and universities exercise with respect to the admission of prospective students and the reasonable accommodation of matriculated students with disabilities. This article presents the findings of a review of decisions by human rights tribunals in Canada over the 7-year period of 2014–2021. With respect to both admissions cases and in-program reasonable accommodations cases, it identifies the main types of barriers experienced by persons with disabilities. It also examines the ways in which accessibility legislation, a proactive standard-setting form of legislation in Canada, has sought to improve access to post-secondary students with disabilities, focusing on Ontario’s post-secondary education accessibility standards as an example. Finally, it argues that changes to policies and practices on the ground that draw more inspiration from Article 24 of the CRPD will help to ensure that the equality right to post-secondary education for students with disabilities is fulfilled in letter and spirit.
{"title":"Access to post-secondary Education in Canada for students with disabilities","authors":"Laverne Jacobs","doi":"10.1177/13582291231174156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231174156","url":null,"abstract":"In Canada, access to post-secondary education is guaranteed by a number of domestic instruments. These instruments are: statutory human rights legislation, constitutional law, and accessibility legislation. These guarantees are further bolstered by Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Statutory human rights legislation (or anti-discrimination law) plays the most extensive role in controlling the discretionary power that colleges and universities exercise with respect to the admission of prospective students and the reasonable accommodation of matriculated students with disabilities. This article presents the findings of a review of decisions by human rights tribunals in Canada over the 7-year period of 2014–2021. With respect to both admissions cases and in-program reasonable accommodations cases, it identifies the main types of barriers experienced by persons with disabilities. It also examines the ways in which accessibility legislation, a proactive standard-setting form of legislation in Canada, has sought to improve access to post-secondary students with disabilities, focusing on Ontario’s post-secondary education accessibility standards as an example. Finally, it argues that changes to policies and practices on the ground that draw more inspiration from Article 24 of the CRPD will help to ensure that the equality right to post-secondary education for students with disabilities is fulfilled in letter and spirit.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"23 1","pages":"7 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49398008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-11DOI: 10.1177/13582291231165451
L. Waddington
Dutch legislation has prohibited disability discrimination with regard to post-secondary education since 2003, when the Equal Treatment of Disabled and Chronically Ill People Act came into force. The Act prohibits disability discrimination with regard to, inter alia, further and higher education. The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (NIHR) plays an important role in interpreting and applying all Dutch equality legislation. It has a quasi-judicial task and, in this capacity, hears individual complaints and issues Opinions. The NIHR, and its predecessor, the Equal Treatment Commission, have issued numerous Opinions in the context of post-secondary education and (alleged) disability discrimination. For this reason, the Netherlands has been selected for a case study on disability discrimination in post-secondary education. This article examines 70 Opinions in this area and explores: whether individuals with particular forms of disabilities or chronic illnesses are over-represented in the cases brought; the main areas in which cases (alleging) disability discrimination in the context of post- secondary education have arisen; and the types of (alleged) discrimination which are at issue.
{"title":"Dutch disability discrimination law and further and higher education: A case study based on the Opinions of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights","authors":"L. Waddington","doi":"10.1177/13582291231165451","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231165451","url":null,"abstract":"Dutch legislation has prohibited disability discrimination with regard to post-secondary education since 2003, when the Equal Treatment of Disabled and Chronically Ill People Act came into force. The Act prohibits disability discrimination with regard to, inter alia, further and higher education. The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (NIHR) plays an important role in interpreting and applying all Dutch equality legislation. It has a quasi-judicial task and, in this capacity, hears individual complaints and issues Opinions. The NIHR, and its predecessor, the Equal Treatment Commission, have issued numerous Opinions in the context of post-secondary education and (alleged) disability discrimination. For this reason, the Netherlands has been selected for a case study on disability discrimination in post-secondary education. This article examines 70 Opinions in this area and explores: whether individuals with particular forms of disabilities or chronic illnesses are over-represented in the cases brought; the main areas in which cases (alleging) disability discrimination in the context of post- secondary education have arisen; and the types of (alleged) discrimination which are at issue.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"23 1","pages":"29 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49110439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：