FAITH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

MANAKALA

Affiliated to Senate of Serampore University

A Project Paper on:

Disability Movements

International Disability Alliance (IDA), World Blind Union (WBU),

Disabled International Federation of the Deaf (IFD), World Network
of People Psychiatric International (DPI), Users and Survivors
(WNPU&S), World Union of Deaf and Blind (WUDB), Inclusion
International (II)

Subject: Disability Perspective

Submitted by: Victor Joel .M

B. D. 2

Submitted to: Rev. Dr. Bobby S Matthew

1
1. Introduction
Disability is considered by Christians as a tragedy or punishment from God, abandonment by God, a test of
faith, the sins of the fathers transferred to children or acts of God. The general belief is that good people are
blessed with all good gifts from God and their bodies are perfect. The popular understanding of Buddhism and
Hinduism says that Karma, the belief that ‘the fate in this present life is the result of the deeds in the previous
life’, is what determines whether a person is disabled. The understanding of Karma is that you must accept the
bad things that come to you because these are the results of your own actions in your previous life. A person
with a disability must just accept and, if you want to experience more good things in your next life, do good
things in this life. Further, having a person with disability present during an auspicious event is considered as a
bad omen. Such taboos and religious superstitions encourage the society to neglect and oppress person with
disability. People with disability are affected more by society than they are by their impairments. The
oppressive attitudes, inappropriate language, inappropriate expectations and false stereo types of the society
towards disability are what make disability so vulnerable. Therefore, a new faith-based approach is needed to
liberate and restore the dignity and respect to the disability people.

The terminology and definitions used to refer to the categories of the to among academicians, health
professionals, social workers and the disability movement at least in the last twenty or so years. The term
“disability” is a creation of the modern society in its attempt to group people with different characteristics
perceived to have related or similar effects on the human life. It is not a term that existed either in the Western
or the African traditions. The Judeo-Christian tradition too did not have this type of classification as it described
individuals in accordance to their specific infirmities. This explains why the term will not be found in the Bible.
The term emerged in an attempt to have organized care for people who in the eyes of the society were seen to
require care and attention. The earliest definitions of the term were therefore by caregivers. Arguments over
definitions have intensified with the emergence of new players in the field. Thus, Disability has been defined in
different ways at different times and by different categories of people. These definitions have reflected different
interests and understanding depending on who is defining it. The definitions fall into two main classifications,
namely, the medical model and the social model. Care givers, health workers and academics have largely
embraced the medical model while persons with disabilities through their movements are largely proponents of
the social model.

Persons with disabilities argue that there is a hidden political purpose behind the definition by the care givers -
which is to justify their roles. Their definitions are backed up by political and academic supporters who rely on
them for advice. There is also, on the other hand, an important political task facing the people with disabilities’
movement as a social group. This is to gain control over the way their situation is described and defined. A
2
commonly prevailing view among persons with disabilities especially in Britain and Western Europe is that the
carers’ definitions locate the cause of the problems persons with disabilities face in their individual
impairments. It is argued that as long as these carers are able to maintain the idea that it is the bodies of those
with disabilities that are at fault, the social structures they have created can be protected. By the simple device
of focusing on their bodies, these definitions draw attention away from the discriminatory society. Such
definitions underpin the dominant hegemony of ideas these people have constructed to justify their position. 1

2. International Disability Alliance (IDA)

The International Disability Alliance (IDA) is a global network of organizations of persons with disabilities
(OPDs). It was established to promote and protect the rights of people with disabilities across the world. IDA
works to advance the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (CRPD), as well as to ensure that persons with disabilities are included in global development
efforts.

IDA serves as a platform that unites prominent global and regional organizations of persons with disabilities
(DPOs). These organizations represent a broad spectrum of disability groups, ensuring that diverse perspectives
and voices are included in the decision-making processes. IDA collaborates with international bodies such as
the United Nations and various governments, advocating for policy changes and the implementation of
disability-inclusive practices in areas like education, employment, healthcare, and accessibility.

Through its work, IDA strives to combat stigma, remove barriers, and create an inclusive society where persons
with disabilities can fully participate in all aspects of life. Its efforts are aimed at empowering individuals with
disabilities and promoting their active role in shaping policies and initiatives that affect their lives .

2.1 Background
The Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction is the main global forum to assess and discuss progress on the
implementation of the 2015-2030 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, adopted in 2015 by the UN
General Assembly. Since then, the International Disability Alliance (IDA) has facilitated the Stakeholder Group
of Persons with Disabilities: Thematic Group on DRR, an open coordination mechanism established to support
persons with disabilities, their representative organizations and other relevant stakeholders to engage in Sendai
Platforms and monitoring processes.

1
Okola. Anyjeline and Longchar. Wati, Disability Theology from Asia (Kolkata: ESPACE press, 1683), 23-24.

3
To catalyse change and enhance inclusion of persons with disabilities in humanitarian responses, including
disaster management, IDA has joined the project "Putting Persons with Disabilities at the Centre of
Humanitarian Preparedness and Response: building and strengthening capacity in inclusive humanitarian action
and inclusive disaster preparedness through the active inclusion of persons with disabilities", funded by the
German Federal Foreign Office (FFO). This project, started in May 2021, will run until December 2023, and is
implemented in partnership with Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund (ASB), Malteser International (MI), Christoffel
Blinden mission (CBM), and Centre for Disability in Development (CDD).

The alliance operates on the premise that those who are most affected by policies—persons with disabilities
themselves—should be at the forefront of advocating for their rights. Over the years, IDA has expanded its
work to ensure disability inclusion in major international development agendas, such as the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development (which includes the Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs).

IDA continues to work closely with the United Nations and various national governments, pushing for the full
inclusion of persons with disabilities in social, economic, and political spheres. It advocates for policies that
address the diverse needs of people with different types of disabilities and seeks to dismantle barriers that lead
to discrimination and marginalization. 2

2.2 IDA is a social movement of persons with disabilities, formed by eight global and six
regional organisations of persons with disabilities (DPOs). These organisations are characterised
by leadership comprised of persons with disabilities and have members in more than 200
countries throughout the world. 3

The aim of IDA is to promote the effective and full implementation of the CRPD, worldwide. It advances
compliance with the CRPD within the UN system and with other key international cooperation stakeholders,
through the active and coordinated involvement of representative organisations of persons with disabilities and
activists at the national, regional, and international levels.

IDA is a small organisation experiencing fast growth. Since 2014, IDA has been successful at securing grants
from a number of funding partners (now twenty in addition to Sida), resulting in an increase of the annual
budget from 1,6 million CHF in 2014 to 5,9 million CHF in 2018. However, as IDA budget grows, the share of
constrained project funding (as compared to core funding) has increased which puts the alliance under more
pressure. This is illustrated by the fact that the same amount of Sida funding represented 32 percent of the IDA
budget in 2014, and that proportion decreased in 2018 to 11 percent. Over the lifespan of IDA, Sida has

2
IDA also includes one Observer Member
3
http://www.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/all-countries
4
remained a core funder, along with Australia, UK, Open Society Foundation and Wellsprings. These core
contributions are essential for the survival and operations of IDA as it does not have equity of its own.

The latest external evaluation of IDA was carried out in 2016. It found that IDA’s management and structure
were not yet adequate for the needs of its ambitious program and expected/desired outcomes11. The
evaluation’s observation of high workload led to the establishment of six additional positions to bolster
programming efforts, thereby increasing its capacity as an organization to 18 positions. Interview data confirms
that these positions have not always been filled consistently, due to budgetary limitations (Geneva and New
York are expensive), work permit issues and difficulties to attract staff with the required background.

The sexual and reproductive health rights of persons with disabilities have traditionally been denied, ignored or
at best misunderstood by medical and health professionals, policy makers, and wider society. The medical
model continues to reign in which persons with all types of disabilities (physical, sensory, and psychosocial
disabilities) are viewed as unable or unfit to engage in sexual activity, and unable or unfit to exercise parental
rights and responsibilities, and deemed unworthy to be informed and educated about their right to sexual and
reproductive health.

As a result of this long standing and continuing discrimination, adolescents and adults with disabilities have
frequently been considered genderless or asexual. In the case of institutional settings, staff often reject the idea
that patients/residents are interested in engaging in intimate relationships, and any display of sexual interest or
conduct is considered as a treatable consequence of their condition. Due to widespread attitudes of neglect and
psychiatrisation in institutional settings and in society, the right to sexual autonomy is prohibited, and no efforts
are taken to provide information or education about healthy sexual relationships and reproductive health. The
failure to address these important issues increases the risk of sexual abuse and exploitation, and the transmission
of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

2.3 Article 7 – Children with disabilities Children with disabilities have the right to express their views
freely on all matters affecting them, with their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and
maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate
assistance to realise this right. Children with disabilities must have the same rights to information and education
on sexual and reproductive health rights, and to access services and assistance with respect to this right in
accordance with their age and maturity.

5
3.World Blind Union (WBU)
The World Blind Union (WBU), a member of the International Disability Alliance, represents approximately
253 million people worldwide who are blind or partially sighted. Members are organisations of and for the blind
in 190 countries, as well as international organisations working in the field of vision impairment. The WBU and
its partner, the International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment (ICEVI), are in close
collaboration on the essential components for the education of learners with visual impairments.

The WBU recognises the gross inequalities in educational opportunities for children and youth with blindness
and low vision, especially in the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, where approximately
90% of all children and youth with visual impairment live and where less than 10% of these children and youth
currently have access to any type of education, formal or nonformal. WBU affirms that: inclusive, appropriate
education and lifelong learning is the foundation for improving the lives of people with visual impairment.
WBU supports Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and
emphasises that learners with visual impairment require unique teaching, learning and assessment methods to
access a quality, holistic education. Learners must have access to the curriculum, which must be flexible for
adaptation and include mathematics and science. They should be taught the skills of reading and writing braille,
orientation and mobility, use of information and communication access technology, socialisation and activities
of daily living, which in life after school will promote overall development and independent living in the
community.

3.1 Accessible Technology and Digital Inclusion

Another significant area of WBU’s focus is inclusive technology, which has become a cornerstone of
accessibility for people with visual impairments. As digital platforms and services become integral to daily life,
WBU advocates for technology developers and companies to prioritize accessibility from the outset. This
includes promoting the use of screen readers, voice-command systems, and tactile interfaces that enable blind
and partially sighted users to engage fully with digital content. WBU engages with governments and global
regulatory bodies to ensure that policies governing technology include provisions for disability access, from
smartphone apps to online banking and e-government services. Through these efforts, WBU is ensuring that
technological progress benefits everyone, regardless of their abilities. 4

3.2 Inclusive Education

Education remains a central pillar of WBU’s work in promoting disability rights. The organization firmly
believes that education is the gateway to empowerment and inclusion for blind and partially sighted individuals.

4
Ahmed, T. 2005. “The Population of Persons with Disabilities”. Asia Pacific Population Journal, 10(1), 39-62.
6
WBU pushes for the development of inclusive educational systems where blind children can learn alongside
their sighted peers, rather than being segregated into specialized institutions. This includes advocating for
accessible learning materials, such as textbooks in braille and audio formats, and ensuring teachers are trained
to provide meaningful instruction to visually impaired students. By fostering inclusive education, WBU is
helping to break the cycle of marginalization and ensuring that the next generation of blind individuals is
equipped to contribute meaningfully to society.

3.3 Employment Advocacy and Workplace Inclusion

In addition to educational advocacy, WBU places a high priority on addressing the high unemployment rates
among blind and partially sighted individuals. The organization works with both private and public sectors to
advocate for laws and policies that require employers to provide reasonable accommodations, such as assistive
technologies, flexible workspaces, and accessible workplace environments. It also encourages businesses to
recognize the valuable contributions that visually impaired employees can make. Through training programs
and awareness campaigns, WBU helps employers overcome stereotypes and misconceptions about the
capabilities of blind workers, thus fostering a more inclusive and diverse workforce.

3.4 Health Care Access and Disability Rights

One of the critical areas of focus for the World Blind Union (WBU) is improving access to healthcare for blind
and partially sighted individuals. Blind people often face significant barriers in healthcare settings, including
inaccessible information, difficulty navigating facilities, and healthcare workers untrained in handling the needs
of visually impaired patients. WBU advocates for inclusive healthcare policies that prioritize accessibility at
every stage, from the availability of braille and audio instructions on medications to training healthcare
professionals to communicate effectively with visually impaired patients. By ensuring that healthcare is
inclusive, WBU promotes the right to quality health services for blind individuals, which is essential for their
overall well-being and independence. 5

4.Disabled International Federation of the Deaf (IFD)

When a person is deaf, it is usually not something they choose. Deafness can occur anytime throughout a
person's life due to illness, trauma, birth defects, or complications that occurred during birth. In a child's
development deafness can occur due to the mother falling ill, genetics, and other complications during
pregnancy. Deafness is not a visible disability and as a result is often overlooked by the general population.

Deaf people are supported by governments and nonprofit organizations throughout most of the world. In more
developed countries (MDC) deaf people are often given special education to accommodate their needs and

5
Longchar, Wati & Gordon Cowans (Eds.). Doing Theology from Disability Perspective. (Manila: ATESEA, 2011).
7
learning requirements. The deaf population in the United Statesis taught American Sign Language as a means of
communication to afford them equal social and educational opportunities in their life. In some less
developed countries (LDC) people are less likely to get the same care. They are not always taught the sign
language used in their country and face issues communicating with people from every field of life which
prevents the deaf community in those countries from living what the hearing community would refer to as
normal life.

4.1 Limitations of Study

While deafness affects people from all around the world, the author is only focusing on hearing loss in the
United States, China, and Kenya. This factor is not stating that deafness in other countries and portions of the
world are less severe or unimportant. The author cannot travel to these places to see firsthand what
the conditions are like and is having to rely on the accounts of others or published materials, which in some
cases these sources may be limited due to a lack of information about the treatment of deaf people in some
areas.

The author is hearing and does not have firsthand experience of what it is like to be deaf and therefore cannot
give personal experiences. Due to that factor, the author will be relying on interviews with deaf people to gain
an understanding of what it is like to be deaf and to obtain an insight into deaf culture and what it means to be
deaf in our society. He will ask deaf people to explain their personal experiences and what deafness is to them.

The author does not know fluent ASL and is at a beginner’s level and will have to rely on translators or
interpreters to hold conversation. Even though during any communication there will be a translator present, the
lack of fluency may become an issue due to mistranslation and potential misunderstanding. The author also
does not know Chinese Sign Language (CSL), Kenyan Sign Language (KSL), and Swahili Sign Language
(LAK) and could not converse with anyone using these forms of communication. 6

Sign languages have been defined from a linguistic viewpoint as languages, and those using sign languages
have been defined as a linguistic minority. Deaf people are also persons with a disability in the sense that all
their rights will be fulfilled only when their linguistic rights are met, and sign language and its use in all spheres
of human life is recognised and respected. In other words, Deaf people are persons with a disability whose
rights can be secured by securing their linguistic rights.

In the view of WFD Braille and sign language should not be considered in the same light. It is very clear in
linguistics that sign languages are LANGUAGES, whereas Braille is a way of writing down any language.
Braille can be seen in the same way as, for instance, transcribing Kurdish written in Arabic script - as in Iraq -

6
Ringo, A. (2013, August 09). Understanding Deafness: Not Everyone Wants to Be 'Fixed'. Retrieved December 07, 2017.
8
or Kurdish written in Cyrillic script - as in Azerbaijan - to Kurdish written in Latin script, i.e. it is a way of
rendering a language in a form that group X can read. Group X can be Kurds who only know Latin script, or it
can be blind people who only read Braille. Even if those Kurds can learn to read Kurdish in the Arabic or
Cyrillic script whereas blind people cannot read any written language unless it is in Braille, this does not mean
Braille is a language. It is a MEANS OF REPRESENTING AN EXISTING LANGUAGE.

4.2 Freedom of Expression and Opinion, and Access to information

States parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise their right to
freedom of expression and opinion, and to seek, receive and impart information on an equal footing with others,
through Braille and other modes of communication of their choice. For Deaf people, a linguistic minority,
freedom of expression and opinion, and equal access to information presupposes recognition of national sign
language(s) as their first language; and securing the natural language development of Deaf children in sign
language. For all persons with disabilities, the measures include:

a) (as is) b) accepting the use of alternative modes of communication by persons with disabilities in official
interactions, and of sign language by Deaf people; c) educating persons with disabilities to use alternative and
augmentative communication modes; for Deaf people, education in their national sign language(s) should be
available; d) (as is) e) promoting other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities
to ensure their access to information, including provision of appropriate training to live assistance workers,
intermediaries and sign language interpreters; f) (as is) g) (as is).

4.3 Viewing the Deaf Community as a Cultural and Linguistic Minority Group

Adopted by consensus in 1992, the Minorities Declaration in its article 1 refers to minorities as based on
national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity, and provides that States should protect their
existence. Specifically, they are “a group which is smaller in number than the rest of the population of a State,
whose members have ethnic, religious or linguistic features different from those of the rest of the population,
and are guided, if only implicitly, by the will to safeguard their culture, traditions, religion or language. Any
group coming within the terms of this definition shall be treated as an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority. To
belong to a minority shall be a matter of individual choice.” This therefore defines deaf communities as
minority communities in their respective countries around the world.7

7
Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson 1994, 107, note 2.
9
However, there has not always been an internationally agreed definition to define whether a group is a
national/ethnic/cultural/religious or linguistic minority, and this lack of agreement disadvantages deaf
communities as a whole. It is often stressed that the existence of a minority is a question of fact and that any
definition must include both objective factors (such as the existence of a shared ethnicity, language or religion)
and subjective factors (including that individuals themselves identify as members of a minority).

Before proceeding further, it is important to understand the situational and definitional complexity related to the
language experience that is perhaps unique to the Deaf and signing community because of how language
experience intersects with disability oppression. “Mother tongue”, which by definition means the “language
usually spoken in the individuals’ home or in his or her early childhood,” is not always understood in a
consistent way for children who are born deaf. The most consistent and least complex example of this for deaf
children is when a deaf child is born into a Deaf signing family. In this situation the child’s mother tongue is the
same as that of the family. The majority of deaf children, however, are born into families that use spoken
language. If they cannot “hear” a language (bringing out the bias with the phrase “mother tongue”), what is their
mother tongue if their family primarily uses spoken language and the child and family learn sign language as
the child grows to connect, engage and teach their child? In this case, sign language can become the mother
tongue of the whole family with a deaf child. This experience is unique to deaf children and stands in stark
contrast to the experience of most children in the world.8

For deaf people, who use sign language, whether they acquire sign language after birth or later in life, the
uniqueness of their identity with, and their use of, sign language means that sign language is their “mother
tongue”, and in the cases where they are born into families that use spoken language, their “mother tongue” is
adopted by their family instead of being transmitted over generations. This complexity of this construct, which
separates the language of choice for a linguistic minority from the language used by the parents or family, is
essential to understand.

The WFD has argued that being allowed to develop their cultural and linguistic identities – including in
educational settings - is a key right of deaf children. And that methods of education which best promote the
development of such identities are full sign language/bicultural models of education where education is
delivered in national sign language (not just interpreted into sign language which has been suggested as a
reasonable accommodation) in an environment where all people can/are competent in and use sign language.31
This is a strong form of what multilingualism research calls a mother-tongue-based multilingual education
(where the “multilingualism” in the case of deaf children means reading and writing in another language or
languages).

8
WFD 2016.
10
4.4 Viewing the Deaf Community as part of the Disability Movement
The CRPD defines disability according a human rights model of disability. 9 Under the social model of disability
that precedes the human rights model, it is the interaction between an individual’s ‘impairment’ and barriers in
society that creates ´disability´. In other words, it is the environment that is disabling, not the ‘impairment’
itself. To give a practical example – a person with a physical disability is only disabled when there is a barrier in
place, for example a lack of a ramp or step-free access is not available. When a deaf person (i.e. a person who
has reduced or no hearing) is in an environment that requires him or her to hear to be able to access or exercise
a right, this is a barrier and creates ‘disability’. It is important to note that there are also deaf people who have a
physical, mental or other sensory disability, and so it does not work to say that deaf people are ´not disabled´.
If the social model works for one, it works for all. The social model says that the response to disability is not to
‘fix’ the impairment (require that the deaf person hear in order to participate like everyone else) but rather to
reduce or eliminate the barriers that a deaf person faces in an often hostile and inaccessible environment.
Reducing barriers may mean providing information or the relevant services in sign language, or through people
who are able to use sign language (accessibility) or providing a sign language interpreter to facilitate
communication (reasonable accommodation). It may mean ensuring technology assists deaf people to
communicate - e.g. through video relay, internet based video communication or alternatively in some cases,
provision of live captioning. When such barriers are reduced society is non-disabling. The human rights model
of disability advanced by the CRPD allows people with disabilities and deaf people to participate in the
discourse of rights on an equal basis with others by requiring systemic changes that enable all people to enjoy
their human rights.10

5. World Network of People Psychiatric International (DPI) Users and Survivors

(WNPU&S)
The World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (WNUSP) is an international organisation
representing, and led by what it terms “survivors of psychiatry”. As of 2003, over 70 national organisations
were members of WNUSP, based in 30 countries. The network seeks to protect and develop the human rights,
disability rights, dignity and self-determination of those labelled ‘mentally ill’. WNUSP has special consultative
status with the United Nations. It contributed to the development of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities. WNUSP has produced a manual to help people use it entitled “Implementation
Manual for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”.

9
Degener 2016 and Jones 2011.
10
Jones 2011.
11
WNUSP joined with other organisations to create the International Disability Caucus, which jointly represented
organisations of people with disabilities and allies during the CRPD negotiations. WNUSP was part of the
steering committee of the IDC, which maintained a principle of respecting the leadership of diverse
constituencies on issues affecting them, and also maintained that the convention should be of equal value to all
persons with disabilities irrespective of the type of disability or geographical location. Tina Minkowitz,
WNUSP’s representative on the IDC steering committee, coordinated the IDC’s work on key articles of the
CRPD, including those on legal capacity, liberty, torture and ill-treatment and integrity of the person. Since the
adoption and entry into force of the CRPD, WNUSP has worked with other organisations in the International
Disability Alliance and its CRPD Forum to guide the interpretation and application of the CRPD on these
issues.

5.1 Brief History

Since the 1970s, the psychiatric survivors movement has grown from a few scattered self-help groups to a
worldwide network engaged in protecting civil rights and facilitation of efforts to provide housing, employment,
public education, research, socialisation and advocacy programmes. The term ‘psychiatric survivor’ is used by
individuals who identify themselves as having experienced human rights violations in the mental health system.
WNUSP was established to further promote this movement and to respond on an international level to the
oppression survivors continue to experience.

After initially meeting, in 1991, as the World Federation of Psychiatric Users at the biennial World Federation
for Mental Health conference in Mexico, the network’s name was changed to WNUSP in 1997. In 2000, the
WNUSP Secretariat was established in Odense, Denmark. In 2001, the network held its First General Assembly
in Vancouver, British Columbia, with 34 groups from twelve countries represented, and adopted its governing
statutes.

As a disability-focused group, WNUSP represents individuals who identify as survivors of psychiatric

treatment, many of whom have experienced coercion or involuntary care. The organization emphasizes that
psychiatric survivors should be recognized as part of the global disability rights movement, particularly under
the framework of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which views
involuntary treatment as a violation of human rights. WNUSP's advocacy highlights that psychosocial
disabilities, like mental health conditions, deserve the same protections as other disabilities.

The organization’s key advocacy goals within the disability context include:

1. Equal legal capacity: WNUSP strongly supports Article 12 of the CRPD, which guarantees equal
recognition before the law for people with disabilities, including the right to make their own decisions.

12
 This opposes traditional psychiatric practices where patients might be denied the right to make decisions
due to their mental health status.

2. Freedom from detention and forced treatment: Article 14 of the CRPD addresses the right to liberty
and security, explicitly opposing the arbitrary detention of individuals based on disability, including
psychosocial disabilities. WNUSP argues that involuntary psychiatric hospitalization and forced
treatment violate these rights and push for their abolition.

3. Promoting alternatives to traditional psychiatry: The organization advocates for non-coercive,

community-based mental health services that respect the autonomy and dignity of individuals with
psychosocial disabilities. They emphasize the need for peer support systems and person-centered care
approaches that empower individuals, rather than subjecting them to treatments they do not consent to.

4. Recognition of psychosocial disability within the broader disability framework: WNUSP aims to
ensure that people with psychosocial disabilities are fully included in the global disability rights
movement. They work to challenge the stigma and discrimination faced by individuals with mental
health conditions, pushing for their recognition as a protected group under international disability law.11

5. Intersection with Disability and Social Justice Movements: WNUSP sees psychosocial disability as
part of the broader disability rights and social justice movements, calling attention to the
intersectionality of mental health with issues like poverty, marginalization, and discrimination. Their
work highlights that those with mental health challenges should be included in the fight for disability
justice and equal rights in areas such as education, employment, and housing.

6. World Union of Deaf and Blind (WUDB)

The World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) and the World Blind Union (WBU) (‘the Organisations’) present
their compliments to the Committee and are pleased to provide the following comments. for periodic reporting
to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The Organisations wish to express
concerns about the indicators proposed for Article 24, and are concerned to ensure that these do not unduly
downplay the role of specialist education in assisting deaf children, deafblind children and blind children to
achieve their potential.

11
Eiesland, Nancy. The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability (Nahsville: AbingdonPress, 1994). 35.
13
6.1 The needs of deaf children/learners
WFD strongly emphasises the right to bilingual education with quality content direct instruction (and
assessment) in sign language. WFD is concerned that none of the proposed indicators appear to be in favour of
any form of deaf bilingual education, except for that at paragraph 260. WFD strongly advocates - as an urgent
and high priority - for indicators which measure the right to bilingual education with quality content instruction
(and assessment) in sign language in both mainstream and deaf schools, provided that the instructional quality
in all educational contexts is either directly provided by qualified teachers of the deaf or qualified educational
interpreters.

6.2 The needs of blind children/learners

Children who are blind and have low vision may need training in:

• Mobility skills (e.g. using white canes, guide dogs)

• Braille instruction

• Skills in using assistive technology

• Other skills for successfully living as a person who is blind or has low vision.

For blind and partially sighted persons key factors are not only Braille instruction but also the supports that go
along with that – trained teachers, accessible materials, Braille writing equipment and technologies. Deafblind
children cover the spectrum of those who may be slightly low vision and slightly hard of hearing through to
being both fully blind and deaf. Indicators need to be carefully crafted to take into consideration this wide range
of experiences and educational preferences.12

7. Inclusion International (II)

The Inclusion International network’s vision is a world where people with intellectual disabilities and their
families can take part and be valued equally in all areas of their lives in their communities. Our member’s
shared vision is explained in our Statement of Unity, which all members of the network agree to.

➢ Inclusion International works to make this vision a reality through:

12
Alary F, Duquette M, Goldstein R, Chapman CE, Voss P, Buissonière-Ariza La, Lepore F (2009) Tactile acuity in the blind: a
closer look reveals superiority over the sighted in some but not all cuta-neous tasks. Neuro psychologia 47:2037–2043.
14
 1. advocacy, such as going to the United Nations (UN) to ask them to make inclusion happen and working
in partnership with other stakeholders for joint advocacy

2. supporting our members to ask for change in their countries through direct support and project
partnerships, resources, and information

3. building the strength of our network with joint work across countries and region, shared learning, and
information sharing.

The Inclusion International network works on all issues that are important to people with intellectual disabilities
and their families, which includes inclusive education, employment, deinstitutionalization, political
participation, supported decision-making and legal capacity, inclusive development, and more.

Inclusion International also worked with Down Syndrome International to create the Listen Include Respect
Guidelines, a set of guidelines that support organisations to include people with intellectual disabilities in their
work better. Inclusion International welcomes organisations reaching out to get more support making their
organisation more inclusive.

Inclusion International is also a founding member of the International Disability Alliance (IDA) and is a
member of the International Disability and Development Consortium (IDDC).

8. conclusion
The global disability movements, spearheaded by organizations like the International Disability Alliance
(IDA), World Blind Union (WBU), Disabled International Federation of the Deaf (IFD), World Network
of People with Psychiatric Disabilities (WNPU&S), World Union of Deaf and Blind (WUDB), and
Inclusion International (II), have been instrumental in advocating for the rights, dignity, and full inclusion of
people with disabilities worldwide. These movements focus on amplifying the voices of people with various
disabilities—be it visual, auditory, psychiatric, or cognitive—and ensuring that their rights are recognized in
international law, policies, and social norms. The work of these organizations has contributed to landmark
achievements, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This
convention enshrines equality, accessibility, and participation for people with disabilities in all aspects of life.
the disability movements and their associated organizations play a pivotal role in ensuring that people with
disabilities are not only recognized but also included as equal participants in society. They continue to challenge
stigma, fight for equal opportunities, and work towards a world where accessibility, autonomy, and the dignity
of all are protected.
15
9. Bibliography
Chau, Tom, and Jillian Fairley, editors. Paediatric Rehabilitation Engineering: From Disability to Possibility. CRC
Press,2011.

Corrigan, Patrick W., et al. Principles and Practice of Psychiatric Rehabilitation: An Empirical Approach. The
Guilford Press, 2008.

Dunn, Dana S. Understanding the Experience of Disability: Perspectives from Social and Rehabilitation
Psychology. Oxford UP, 2019.

Harsløf, Ivan, et al., editors. New Dynamics of Disability and Rehabilitation: Interdisciplinary Perspectives.
PalgraveMacmillan,2019.

Okala, Anjeline, Longchar, Wati. Disability Theology from Asia. Taiwan: The Program for Theology and
Cultures in Asia, 2019.
Paterson, Gillian, and Sara Bhattacharji. Beyond the Bougainvillea: Reflections on Disability and
Rehabilitation. Notion Press, 2020.

16