Having problems with message search?
Hi Carol, resonating, from here, I personally/professionally know no other way to go now but to be prepared on these threshold matters.
If things turn out not as desired then we have our cumulated ideas and scholarship to bring to the fore. Thx,
:) LDMF.
--- Carol shares: ----
----- Original Message -----From: leejcaroll@...Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 11:01 AMSubject: [invisible-NO-MORE] Re: [DisabilityConvention] IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE PROTECTED (was Re: [conv...What bothers me about the some of the discussions is that it appears many don't want to be identified by their "disability" (nor do I) but we are asking for a treaty to protect our rights. As such there must be identifications, definitions or nomenclature that allows the knowing of the peoples for whoom the treaty is meant.When we become embroiled in the "them vs. Us" ideology, i.e. they don't have definitions for normal people; we should there be definitions for us we lose sight of the forest for the trees,In a message dated 6/18/2004 6:47:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, ldmf@... writes:Just a short post, as I share Kicki's well expressed concern about Definitions.One thought is that we might switch our discussions to Identification. How shall those to be protected under the Convention both be identified and acknowledsged - due to external decisions and by self-identification - rather than being locked out because they can be argued to not fit under the Convention?I have written some long posts-to-file on this, and in background if it is wished to be discussed can share them if wished. They are of course reflections in process and not "hard wired" - the issue 'who is to be protected and who enjoyment of rights can be asserted' remains central and affects Monitoring - not Definitions per se or even descriptions for that matter are needed if there are other ways.What is a preferred strategy so people can exercize their rights? There are some discussions of just this point on the Web, and links will be posted anon.What bothers me about the some of the discussions is that it appears many don't want to be identified by their "disability" (nor do I) but we are asking for a treaty to protect our rights. As such there must be identifications, definitions or nomenclature that allows the knowing of the peoples for whoom the treaty is meant.When we become embroiled in the "them vs. Us" ideology, i.e. they don't have definitions for normal people; we should there be definitions for us we lose sight of the forest for the trees,.
Offline 
Send Email