1995/2005 İngiltere Özürlüler Ayrımcılıkla Mücadele Yasası ve Yasayla İlgili Güncel Konular
ÖZET
Bu araştırmanın amacı, 1995/2005 İngiltere Özürlüler Ayrımcılıkla Mücadele Yasasıyla ilgili bazı temel mevcut konuların eleştirisel bir bakış açısıyla ilgili literatürün ışığında ele alınarak gözden geçirilmesidir. Bu çalışmanın zemininde, şimdilerde İngiltere’de olduğu gibi ülkemizde de özürlü olmayan bireylerle eşit koşullara sahip olabilmeyi sağlayabilme açısında ayırımcılıkla mücadelenin üzerinde önemle durulan kritik bir konu olması yatmaktadır.
5378 sayılı Türkiye Özürlüler Yasasının Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi tarafından 1 Temmuz 2005 tarihinde kabul edilmesiyle birlikte, T.C. Başbakanlık Özürlüler İdaresi Başkanlığı yasayla ilgili yönetmelik çalışmaları ve farklı platformlarda tartışılmakta olan özürlü ayrımcılığının tanımlanması çalışmalarıyla özürlülük konusuna farklı bir boyut getirmeye çalışmaktadır. Bu gelişmelerin ışığında, bu çalışmanın İngiltere’de 1995/2005 Özürlüler Ayrımcılıkla Mücadele Yasası ile ilgili mevcut durumun ortaya konulması yoluyla Türkiye’de yeni bir konu olan ayrımcılıkla mücadele konusunu şekillendirmek ve doğru olarak yönlendirmekte yardımcı olacağı düşülmektedir. Bunun yanında, nihai amaç olarak, bu araştırmanın, özürlü ayrımcılığı konusuyla ilgili olarak yakın bir gelecekte Türkiye’de özürlülük sosyal politikasında olabilecek büyük değişikliklere ışık tutması hedeflenmektedir.
Anahtar kelimeler: Özürlüler Ayrımcılıkla Mücadele Yasası, Özürlülük, Ayrımcılık, Özürlü Hakları Komisyonu
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995/2005 AND RELEVANT CURRENT ISSUES IN BRITAIN
Abstract
The aim of this study is to review some of the major current themes related to Disability Discrimination Act 1995/2005 in Britain based on current literature with a critical point of view. The reason behind the study is that nowadays disability discrimination has a critical place for delivering equality and realising ambition for disabled people in Turkey , as in Britain .
Owing to the fact that The Turkish Disability Act No.5378 was adopted in the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 01 July 2005 , Turkish Prime Ministry Administration on Disabled People is trying to gain new dimension on disability issue not only to work on regulations related to the Act but also to work on definition of Disability Discrimination that are discussed in different platforms. In line with these developments, it can be thought that this study would be helpful so as to shape and orientate disability discrimination issue to right way in Turkey through bringing up the relevant issues of Disability Discrimination Act 1995/2005 in Britain . Moreover, the ultimate aim of this study is to show the way to disability social policy area that would encompass major changes in near future in Turkey in relation with the disability discrimination issues.
Key words: Disability Discrimination Act, DDA, Disability, Discrimination, Disability Rights Commission, DRC
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995/2005 AND RELEVANT CURRENT ISSUES IN BRITAIN
Disability rates have been increasing in almost all OECD countries and policy efforts related to decrease the rates have hardly been successful in any of the countries (Marin, Prinz & Queisser, 2004, 20). According to some definitions, there are currently around 10 million disabled adults and 770.000 children in Britain, equivalent to 24% of the adult population and 7% of all children (Office of National Statistics, 2004) in comparison with 50 million disabled people who are living in the European Union and 500 million in worldwide (Barnes, 2002, 311).
Disability as a multifaceted phenomenon involves many crucial factors and problems. One of the essential problems is that disabled people, regardless of the type and/or the severity of impairment, cannot be considered a homogeneous group that can be accommodated easily within a society that takes little or no account of their individual and/or collective needs. As with the population as a whole, disabled people are characterised by difference rather than normality: Differences in terms of gender, minority, ethnic background, sexual orientation, age, abilities, religious beliefs, wealth, access to work. Clearly, their situation cannot be understood or, indeed, transformed by any theory or policy which is based on conventional notions of normality and the existence of a single set of culturally dominant values (Oliver & Barnes,1998,53).
At the turn of the century, disability is very much on the social policy agenda, and social policy issues remain at the top of the political agenda because of raising awareness on disability issues in the world (Priestley, 2000,421). Indeed, social policy has been at the heart of Labour and social democratic politics since The World War II in Britain (Driver & Martell, 2002,77). The Labour government has introduced a number of significant policy developments such as Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995/2005 and setting up a New Commission for Equality and Human Rights since 1997, so as to improve the life chances of disabled people in Britain .
Afterwards the thirteen unsuccessful attempts to get anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people through the British Parliament since 1982 (Barnes & Oliver, 1995, 111), the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was adopted by the British Parliament. It enshrines in law disabled people’s rights to participate in civil society through application to employers, service providers, landlords and schools and colleges. Some elements became law for employers in December 1995. DDA introduces a wide range of measures recommended by the Disability Rights Taskforce in Britain (Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, 2005, 24), and it is the direct result of sustained campaigning by disabled people (Sayce & O’Brien, 2004, 663). A particularly significant amendment is a new duty placed on the public sector to promote disability equality. Together with DDA, abolished the Quota Scheme and replaced by the employment provisions such as supported employment is an important development. Besides, it provides individuals with a legal right to pursue litigation against employers if they feel that they have been discriminated against because they are disabled (Hyde, 2000, 329).
In 2005, The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was made some changes. However, The DDA 2005 does not change basic principles or approaches in the DDA 1995. Rather, the DDA 2005 extends and strengthens existing duties laid down in the DDA 1995 and brings within scope of that Act areas which are not currently covered. For example, the DDA 2005 extends the existing definition of disability in the 1995 Act so that people who are diagnosed with cancer, HIV or multiple sclerosis and mental health problems are covered from the point of diagnosis, instead of from the point at which their condition has any effect on their normal day-to-day activities. Another example is that ‘clinically well-recognised’ statement in DDA 1995 was abolished in DDA 2005. The reason behind that is many people with mental illnesses have experienced humiliation and stress when bringing disability discrimination cases, and many people have not been protected by the law and denied rights because their condition was not ‘clinically well-recognised’. The Act removed this perverse injustice.
Together with the DDA 2005, new rights were created to use public transport and set an end date for all rail vehicles to be accessible. Moreover, it tackles institutional discrimination through a duty to promote disability equality for the public sector (paralleling the race equality duty). Besides, it extends the DDA to cover most functions of public authorities (there is presently a lack of clarity, for example, relating to disabled prisoners, elections, planning and access to pavements and highways). Further, it gives disabled tenants and leaseholders a right to reasonable adjustments and auxiliary aids and services. In addition, it gives disabled people (including guests) new rights in respect of private clubs with 25 members. Lastly of all, it protects disabled councillors against discrimination for the first time (DRC, 2005a).
Setting up a New Commission for Equality and Human Rights is the other policy development. It is intended to bring together the work of the three existing equality commissions - The Disability Rights Commission (DRC), The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), and the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) – and take responsibility for new laws outlawing workplace discrimination on the grounds of age, religion or belief, and sexual orientation (Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, 2005,24). Especially setting up the DRC represents big positive improvement for disabled people in Britain . The DRC is an independent body established in April 2000 by Act of Parliament to stop discrimination and promote equality of opportunity for disabled people, and under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It carries out these duties various ways such as supporting disabled people in getting their rights; gives advice and information to disabled people, employers and service providers; helps solve problems without going to a court or employment tribunal; supports legal cases to test the limits of the law; provides an independent Disability Conciliation Service for disabled people and service providers through; organises campaigns to strengthen the law, and produces policy statements and research on disability issues (DRC,2005b).
Above all, there have been many important policy developments that should have a positive impact on disabled people’s life chances likewise DDA 1995/2005 was adopted by Labour Government in Britain . The aim of this study is to review some of the major current themes related to Disability Discrimination Act 1995/2005 and relevant issues in Britain based on current literature with a critical point of view. The reason behind the study is that nowadays disability discrimination has a critical place for delivering equality and realising ambition for disabled people in Turkey , as in Britain . Owing to the fact that The Turkish Disability Act No.5378 was adopted in the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 01 July 2005 , Turkish Prime Ministry Administration on Disabled People is trying to gain new dimension on disability issue not only to work on regulations related to the Act but also to work on definition of Disability Discrimination that are discussed in different platforms. In line with these developments, it can be thought that this study would be helpful so as to shape and orientate disability discrimination issue to right way in Turkey through bringing up the relevant issues of Disability Discrimination Act 1995/2005 in Britain .
In first section, meaning of discrimination in DDA will be discussed, and section two will focus upon some special issues related to Disability Definition of DDA.
I. What does disability discrimination mean?
Under Part 2 of the DDA there are several types of disability discrimination that are unlawful – direct discrimination, disability-related discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation. Harassment of disabled people is also unlawful. A brief outline can be given to distinguish between different types of discrimination (DRC, 2005c).
In relation with Direct discrimination, The DDA says that a qualification body’s treatment of a disabled person amounts to direct discrimination if the treatment is on the grounds of his/her disability; if the treatment is less favourable than the way in which a person not having that particular disability is (or would be) treated; if the relevant circumstances, including the abilities, of the person with whom the comparison is made are the same as, or not materially different from, those of the disabled person (DRC, 2005c).
Direct discrimination usually occurs when a qualification body treats a disabled person less favourably simply because of his/her disability. This often happens when a qualification body makes stereotypical assumptions about a person's disability or its effects, and direct discrimination can never be justified (DRC, 2005c).
As an example of direct discrimination, this example can be given below.
A qualification body for social work recommends to a College of Higher Education that a man with a mobility impairment should not be allowed onto a social work course, as he may have difficulty visiting the homes of clients. It does this without talking to the man or conducting any assessment. This is likely to amount to direct discrimination and would therefore be unlawful (DRC, 2005c).
As to disability-related discrimination, this is wider than direct discrimination and refers to situations when a qualification body treats a disabled person less favourably for a reason that relates to the person's disability (rather than the disability itself). Disability-related discrimination can be justified only if the reason for the treatment is both material to the circumstances of the particular case and substantial (DRC, 2005c).
As an example of direct discrimination, a woman who is registered with a qualification body for acupuncturists becomes disabled and takes some time off work for rehabilitation. Because she has been off work for a year she is automatically removed from the register. This would be disability-related discrimination as she has been discriminated against for a disability-related reason i.e. the fact that she has been off work, which is related to her disability (DRC, 2005c).
As regards reasonable adjustments, the DDA says that if a provision, criterion or practice of a qualifications body places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in getting or retaining a qualification, then the qualifications body has a duty to make a "reasonable adjustment". A qualification body would also have to make an adjustment if a physical feature of its premises was not accessible to a disabled person needing to use that premises for the purpose of gaining or renewing a qualification. A qualification body’s failure to make reasonable adjustments can never be justified. However, a qualification body does not have to make any adjustments to its competence standards (DRC, 2005c).
Examples of reasonable adjustments that qualifications body might have to make include such as providing test papers in alternative formats such as large print or Braille; allowing extra time in an exam for someone with dyslexia; allowing an assessment to be taken in a different way such as through an oral exam instead of a written test; providing a parking space for a disabled person taking a test at a qualifications body test centre; providing a ramp for a wheelchair user to get onto the stage at a qualification body’s awards ceremony, andproviding a sign language interpreter for a deaf person at a meeting to review that person’s registration (DRC, 2005c).
With respect to victimisation, it is a special form of discrimination directed at any person, disabled or not, who has brought proceedings under the DDA against a qualifications body, or given evidence or information in connection with proceedings under the DDA. It is clearly unlawful for a qualifications body to treat anyone less favourably because they have made a complaint of disability discrimination against it (DRC,2005c).
As to harassment issue, itis unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating a disabled person's dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that person. It can take the form of offensive actions or comments written or verbal (DRC, 2005c).
II. Special Issues related to Disability Definition of DDA
The definition of a disabled person in the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) has always attracted debate. The definition of disability provides a “gateway” to the protection offered to disabled people by the DDA. To prove unlawful discrimination, a complainant must first establish that they are disabled people under the Act and then that they have been discriminated against.
The original definition of disability in the DDA was intended to reflect society’s view that a disability is a long term condition that has a significant impact on a person’s ability to take part in activities that others can take part in. Section 1 of the DDA 1995, therefore, defines a disabled person for the purposes of the Act as one who has:
“a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities” (DDA, 1995,1)
There are three main modifications to this: First, to ensure conditions that have fluctuating impact on a person’s ability to carry out day to day activities (e.g. arthritis) are covered; second, to provide protection to people with severe disfigurements; and finally, to ensure that progressive conditions, which have minor effects when first diagnosed but are likely to go on to have a significant effect in due course, are covered from when the effects first occur.
The original Act (DDA 1995) also provided that: 1. An impairment is only taken as affecting the ability to carry out normal day to day activities if it affects at least one of a defined list of capacities. 2. A mental impairment only includes impairments resulting from mental illness if the illness is “clinically well recognised.” 3. Long term means an impairment that has lasted or is likely to last at least 12 months, or is likely to last the rest of a person’s life. 4. Recurrent conditions can be treated as continuous. 5. Severe disfigurements are treated as having substantial adverse effect. 6. Progressive conditions are regarded as having substantial adverse effect from when they first have any adverse effect, provided they are likely to go on to have a substantial adverse effect, and 7. Medical treatment is disregarded in assessing the extent of an impairment’s effect.
There are further drafts of detailed provisions, which, essentially, allow for particular conditions in specific circumstances to be excluded. For example, conditions like addiction to nicotine or alcohol, and kleptomania are excluded; disfigurements resulting from tattoos cannot count as a severe disfigurement; spectacles or contact lenses are not disregarded in assessing the effect of a visual impairment.
The special issues related to disability definition of DDA can be taken up as a number of aspects/headlines that are given below.
1. It is not The Social Model
There are a number of practical issues with a medical model approach to defining disability. For some, there is also an over-arching philosophical objection that using a medical definition focuses on what’s wrong with an individual rather than what’s wrong with the environment they live in. A social model would focus on the act of discrimination rather than the extent of impairment and, hence, what’s wrong with society rather than an individual disabled person.
The social model is undoubtedly an important and effective tool for advancing understanding of the issues faced by disabled people, achieving shifts in the way disability is thought about, and improving awareness and attitudes. It is also regarded as a source of personal empowerment for disabled people themselves. Many organisations now brand themselves as designing their response to disability around a social model. There are, however, a number of practical difficulties that have not been fully explored. For example; first, it is not clear how a social model takes account of an individual’s personal level of capacity. This becomes particularly acute in the case of some mental impairments – for example, is it really true that a person with learning difficulties is excluded from senior CEO jobs only because of discrimination or lack of adjustment? Can a person with Asperger’s Syndrome really provide the same quality of assessment as, for example, a customer care trainer?
Second, the social model is a very inclusive model – potentially it all covered if disabled people face any form of exclusion relating to any level of actual or perceived impairment. This makes it a very good model for promoting inclusion and inclusive philosophies, but very poor at informing targeted programmes or interventions. It is not clear how the application of the model might be limited with out reintroducing the practical difficulties with the current definitions (i.e. because there is a need to introduce some form of definitional gateway).
Third, it is not clear how the social model achieves a practical balance of rights between those facing barriers to participation and those who might be held responsible for overcoming those barriers or who might be impacted by any solution.
Forth, there is distance between the attitude of the disability lobby to this kind of philosophical approach and that of the public at large. Last, The focus of the social model can, from the most radical perspective, lead disabled people away from improving their lives through effective management of their impairments. For example, there is a fairly well informed debate of a disability message board where a disabled person was questioning whether he should feel guilty about learning to walk even though it improved the quality of his life.
2. Access to Justice
The existence of a definition of disability adds a tier of proof for a person seeking redress under the DDA additional to that under the Race Relations Act or Sex Discrimination Act.
It is claimed that this makes it harder for a claim to succeed because a respondent (particularly in employment cases) can direct focus to whether an individual is technically disabled, rather than to the act of discrimination itself, and this makes it more difficult, more time consuming and more expensive to take a DDA case. It is alleged that this problem can be worse for people with mental impairments, both because of a lack of clarity of coverage, because specialist, detailed (and expensive) evidence can often be required, and because the nature of the condition makes it more difficult for the complainant to cope with the demands of taking a case and, in particular, in giving evidence about the nature of their condition.
The removal of the “clinically well recognised” requirement was, in part, intended to help here.
3. The Treatment of Mental Impairment
There are a number of Different criticisms of the definition come together to an overall view that the DDA has a “physical” bias. For example; first, the “clinically well recognised” requirement was an additional hurdle which people with other kinds of impairment did not have to meet. Second, the list of capacities (i.e. mobility; manual dexterity; physical co-ordination; continence; the ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects; speech, hearing or eye-sight; memory, ability to concentrate, learn or understand; perception of the risk of physical danger) that an impairment must affect is considered by some to be physically biased, which makes it harder for people with mental health impairments to show they are covered. Conditions like autism and even schizophrenia have been explicitly referenced. Third, that some mental impairments are by their nature short term, but DDA protection is necessary because of the high levels of stigmatic discrimination they attract. Depression is the main example. Forth, connected to this is the way in which certain mental impairments are diagnosed: For example, people who have depression often suffer more than one episode, but medical practice is often to diagnose these as separate conditions which means that they do not quality for DDA protection via the recurrent conditions provisions. Last, it is argued that the need to prove a “disability” at all is disproportionately difficult for people with mental impairments
In relation with these concerns, there are some responses to these criticisms. First, the “clinically well recognised” requirement was removed via DDA 2005 and second, the view is that the concerns over the list of capacities is, to a large extent at least, a consequence of an over-narrow reading of the law and a mis-reading of case-law; however, undertaken to review the statutory guidance on the definition of disability to help meet some of these concerns.
There remain outstanding issues, however. For example, first, it will be continued to be pressed on the list of capacities, particularly in relation to conditions like anorexia and bulimia (our view is that these are people with these conditions who are not covered, but that is because the condition does not have a sufficiently substantial effect); second, depression is undoubtedly a condition that is usually short-term but does attract stigmatic discrimination. Covering depression would, however, require to relax the fundamental proposition that a disability is a long-term condition (and so potentially cover other short-term conditions that attract stigma –sexually transmitted diseases for example) or make a specific exemption for depression (which have a number of ramifications including adding risk of legal challenge on equal treatment grounds). There is also a question of the extent to which this is a DDA issue and the extent to which it is one of medical practice.
4. Perception and Association
The DDA only covers disabled people – it does not protect people who are discriminated against because they are perceived to be disabled or associated with a disabled people. Some other discrimination strands do cover analogous circumstances. To illustrate, a person discriminated against because they were perceived to be from a particular racial group is protected. There is some pressure for an extension here – and it is also claimed that failure to cover “perception and association” means Britain has not properly transposed the European Union Directive covering equal treatment in employment and so is open to legal challenge. Most interpretations of a social model would include coverage of discrimination relating to perception and association.
Moving here would represent a significant shift in policy and would significantly extend the coverage of the DDA, because it would bring the relationship between an employer and an employee who was also a carer of a disabled person into civil rights law. The public position is that it has been correctly transposed the EU directive – but there is some risk of a successful challenge.
5. Treatment of Progressive Conditions
It is believed that the DDA 2005 extension to cover cancer, HIV and MS effectively from diagnosis has answered criticism of inadequate coverage for progressive conditions. There is no awareness of any other such conditions which is diagnosed before symptoms occur (and, hence, all should be picked up by the existing provisions relating to recurrent conditions).
Exclusion of disabled people has a long history in the analysis of social policy (Borsay, 2005, 208). Within the British context, like other countries in the world, exclusion has been far more common than inclusion. The reasons for this stemmed originally from ignorance, superstition and, more recently, from industrial development and its accompanying ideologies: scientific rationality, individualism and medicalisation. The category disability did not come into existence until the eighteenth century, although impaired people have always existed (Oliver & Barnes,1998,18-41) .
One of the criticisms from the disability movement has been about the marginalizing of disability from other social policy concerns (Beresford & Holden, 2000,978). Disabled people themselves are demanding a new emphasis on civil rights, equal opportunities and citizenship and they are lobbying for new equal rights legislation to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of disability. The first priority is equal access to basic essentials such as an adequate income, housing, access to employment, to public transport, to education and to the ordinary facilities of everyday life (Oliver & Barnes, 1998, 50).
When it is considered the disability and social policy evolution historically, it can be seen that there is a special relationship between definition of disability and social model in connection with the determination of disability social policy in general.
In recent years, the understanding of disability has changed radically. It has gone from viewing ”disability” as a tragic problem occurring for isolated, has been replaced by a socio-environmental model, which regards disability as an attribute resulting from the interaction between the individual and the social and physical environment (Barnes, 2002,311).
Proponents of this ‘social model’ of disability argue that disability is caused by society, and if you change society you can eliminate disability. Focusing too much on the impairments is seen to deflect attention from the systematic way in which the environment excludes people from participation in civil society (Williams, 1996, 195-207).
Defining disability is complex and controversial, and definitional issues play a major role in both theoretical and policy-oriented studies of disability (Liggett, 1997,178). Though arising from physical or intellectual impairment, disability has social implications as well as health ones. A full understanding of disability recognises that it has a powerful human rights dimension and is often associated with social exclusion, and increased exposure and vulnerability to poverty. Disability is the outcome of complex interactions between the functional limitations arising from a person’s physical, intellectual, or mental condition and the social and physical environment. It has multiple dimensions and is far more than an individual health or medical problem. On this basis, the working definition of disability is ‘long-term impairment leading to social and economic disadvantages, denial of rights, and limited opportunities to play an equal part in the life of the community’ ( Department for International Development, 2000).
While Disability is defined as the disadvantage experienced by an individual as a result of barriers (attitudinal, physical etc.) that impact on people with impairment and/or ill health In Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit Report (2005), Disability definition of Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is that physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities (Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and 2005,1). The differentiation between two definitions is that former one based on social model latter one based on medical model that is criticised widely by disability organisations.
Concerning the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and 2005, it is intended to allow an individual redress against unfair discrimination that occurs because they are a disabled person; and help to support changes in attitudes and behaviour to minimise such behaviour and promote the inclusion of disabled people. Indeed, it offers significant rights but its gaps and weaknesses leave disabled people without comprehensive and enforceable civil rights. The rights of disabled people require participating fully in society, free from unfair discrimination. But it strongly believed that additional rights are not enough.
It is a fact that the Labour Government in Britain has shifted significantly his discourses from medical model point of view to hybrid point of view that is based on medical and social model point of view to some extent, together with Disability Discrimination Act 1995/2005. On the other hand, there is some point of views that put forward against this view. For example, Barnes (1999,12) and Hyde (2000, 339) have alleged that there is a doubt about whether this shifting represents the view of seeing disability as an issue of managed care or seeing disability as one of the civil rights. Although it entered the British statue book as a result of several attempts for achieving this, it is weak because it is based on the traditional individualistic medical view of disability. Besides, it gives only limited protection from direct discrimination in employment, the providing of goods and services. That’s why, they have suggested that there is a need to be developed a new approach which prioritises the needs and rights of disabled people.
There are also some problems related to define disability. Around three quarters of new claimants have more manageable medical conditions such as back pain, depression and mild circulatory disorders rather than a severe disability such as Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia or severe learning difficulties (Endean, 2004, 204). In this point, we have to discuss the issue that do we regard mild medical conditions as disability conditions? If it is so, this means that the dimension of the disability problem would increase more and it would be complicated also.
In line with Policy considerations, Department for Work and Pension Disability Unit put forward opposite idea about the DDA’s definition of disability. They have alleged that a fundamental principle behind the DDA’s definition of disability is that disability arises out of a condition that has long-term effects. While this may appear to be a simple proposition, it does, in fact, attract a high degree of controversy, which means there is always an underlying risk of legal challenge. A successful legal challenge could have significant ramifications for how is defined disability with potentially significant ramifications for those with duties under the Act.
Department for Work and Pension Disability Unit said that generally, requiring a long-term impairment as a pre-condition of being a disabled person for DDA purposes, reflects a medical approach to defining disability. Most of the disability lobby advocate a social approach to defining disability, because this focuses on society’s response to disability rather than seeing disability as simply a medical condition. Because the definition of disability relies on the existence of a long-term impairment, this excludes from protection people who are perceived to be disabled or who are discriminated against because they are associated with a disabled person. This differs from some other equality strands, such as race, where perception and association are covered. There are big questions in here – for example, if association were covered, this could mean that all carers of disabled people could potentially claim unlimited damages from an employer if discriminated against on the grounds of their caring responsibilities, potentially extending coverage to many millions more people. While we might not approve of such discrimination, there is a real question of whether the DDA is right vehicle to address it.
Department for Work and Pension Disability Unit has added that short-term conditions are not protected. It is generally accepted that if you have the flu or break a leg, you are not disabled and should rely on normal employment protection law if unfairly treated. However, other conditions are regarded as more controversial. Perhaps top of this list are depressive illnesses which are regarded as attracting significant stigmatic discrimination and, even if an individual has a number of episodes, are often treated as a series of separate short-term conditions and hence do not attract DDA protection.
There is a real question of whether short-term conditions attract discrimination and, if so, how this might be addressed. The answer, however, is not to allow the definition of disability in the DDA to picked apart condition by condition in an uncontrolled manner. The discussion above demonstrates quite what a legal minefield this can be and the ramifications for those with duties under the Act could be significant. Widening the definition of disability in a way that opened doors to discrimination claims from a much wider range of people is likely to undermine the credibility of the Act in the eyes of precisely the people we need to effectively implement disability rights on the ground.
The Labour Government in Britain has welcomed a recommendation of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee that the DRC should consider whether and how the DDA could be based on a social model of disability. If practical, this might shift the focus from a medical definition of disability more to considering an act of discrimination. The Government made clear during the passage of the Bill that they saw the DRC review as the right vehicle for considering both strategic change – such as changing the “long term” requirement - and more tactical considerations – like the coverage of conditions like depression.
In spite of clear history of disadvantage and exclusion for disabled people, there is a range of recent interventions made by the Labour Government in Britain to address that have a strong focus on civil rights and welfare to work programmes. Some evidence that individual interventions have had some success such as DDA 1995/2005. The Prime Minster's Strategy Unit in Britain sets a high level 20 year strategy to achieve equality for disabled people and switches the focus of attention from the setting of underpinning civil rights which are now largely in place, although questions remain about awareness, enforceability and the "medical model" gateway achieving the right coverage to public sector and service reform. Ultimately, delivering real change will require fundamental shift of attitude right across. Only time will tell if this will prove successful.
References
Barnes, C. & Oliver, M., Disability Rights: Rhetoric and Reality in the UK , Disability and Society 10 (1), Pp. 111–116, (1995).
Barnes, C., A Working Social Model? Disability and Work in the 21st Century, Paper presented at the Disability Studies Conference and Seminar, Apex International Hotel, Edinburgh ( 9 December 1999 ). (1999) Pp.2 – 24.
Barnes, C., Introduction: Disability, policy and politics, Policy and Politics 30 (3), Pp.311– 318, (2002).
Beresford, P. & Holden, C., We Have Choices: Globalisation and Welfare User Movements, Disability and Society 15 (7), Pp. 973–989, (2000).
Borsay, A., Disability and Social Policy in Britain Since 1750: A History of Exclusion , Palgrave Macmillan, China , (2005).
Department for International Development (DFID), Disability, Poverty and Development, DFID Information Department, London , (2000).
Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 Chapter 50, HMSO, London , (1995).
Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 2005 Chapter 13, HMSO, London , (2005).
DRC (Disability Rights Commission), New Disability Act hailed by DRC as major
civil rights legislation (http://www.drc-gb.org/newsroom/ newsdetails.asp?id=803 §ion=1) (accessed 17 September 2005 ) (2005a).
DRC (Disability Rights Commissions), Employment: Guidance for Qualifications Bodies,(http://www.drc-gb.org/businessandservices/ bizdetails.asp?id=98&
title=ep) (accessed 17 September 2005 ) (2005c).
DRC (Disability Rights Commissions), What We Do, (http://www.drc.org.uk /whatwedo/aboutus.asp) (accessed 20 July 2005 ) (2005b).
Driver, S. & Martell, L., New Labour: Politics after Thatcherism, Polity Press, Cambridge , (2002).
Endean, R., Building New Pathways to Work, Transforming Disability Welfare Policies: Towards Work and Equal Opportunities, eds: In Marin, B., Prinz, C. & Queisser, M , Ashgate Publishing Limited, Vienna , (2004).
Hyde, M., From Welfare to Work? Social Policy for Disabled People of Working Age in the United Kingdom in the 1990s, Disability and Society 15 (2), Pp. 327– 341, (2000).
Liggett, H., Stars are not Born: An Interpretive Approach to The Politics of Disability, Disability Studies: Past Present and Future, eds: Barton, L. & Oliver, M., The Disability Press, Leeds , (1997).
Marin, B., Prinz, C. & Queisser, M., Preface, Transforming Disability Welfare Policies: towards Work and Equal Opportunities, eds: Marin, B., Prinz, C. & Queisser, M., Ashgate Publishing Limited, Vienna , (2004).
Oliver, M. & Barnes, C., Disabled People and Social Policy from Exclusion to Inclusion, Longman Social Policy In Britain Series, ed: Campling, J., Addison Wesley Longman Limited, Malaysia , (1998).
Office of National Statistics (ONS), Living in Britain : Results from the 2002 General Household Survey, ( http://www.statistics.gov.uk/LIB2002) (accessed 7 June 2005 ) (2004).
Priestley, M., Adults Only: Disability, Social Policy and The Life Course, Journal of Social Policy 29(3), Pp.421– 439, (2000).
Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, Improving The Life Chances of Disabled People, Crown, London , (2005).
Sayce, L. & O’Brien, N., The Future of Equality and Human Rights in Britain —Opportunities and Risks for Disabled People, Disability and Society 19(6), Pp. 663 – 668, (2004).
Williams, G., Representing Disability: Some Questions of Phenomenology and Politics, Exploring the Divide, eds: Barnes, C. & Mercer, G., The Disability Press, Leeds , (1996).
I would like to thank Mr. Jos Joures and Mr.Roy Kettle who work for Department for Works and Pensions Disability Unit, and are also as a part of the creative team who had introduced DDA 1995 and 2005 for contributing important comments and valuable suggestions to both of my dissertation and the article.
1995/2005 İNGİLTERE ÖZÜRLÜLER AYRIMCILIKLA MÜCADELE YASASI VE YASAYLA İLGİLİ GÜNCEL KONULAR
Özürlülük oranları birçok OECD ülkesinde artmakta olup, bu durumu engellemeye yönelik politika çalışmaları ilgili ülkelerin hiçbirinde başarıya ulaşamamaktadır (Marin, Prinz & Queisser,2004,20). Özürlü nüfusu tespit etmeye yönelik İngiltere’de yapılan bazı çalışmalara göre, Avrupa Birliğinde 50 milyon ve dünyada 500 milyon olan özürlü birey sayısıyla ile karşılaştırıldığında (Barnes, 2002,311), yaklaşık 10 milyon özürlü yetişkin (toplam yetişkin nüfusunun %24’ü) ve 770.000 özürlü çocuk (toplam çocuk nüfusunun %7’si) bulunmaktadır (Office of National Statistics, 2004).
Özürlülük çok yönlü bir olgu olarak birçok önemli faktör ve problemleri içerisinde barındırmaktadır. Bu problemlerden biri, özürlü bireylerin özürlülük türü ve/veya derecesine bakılmaksızın, bireysel ve/veya ortak ihtiyaçlarının az giderildiği veya hiçbir şekilde giderilemediği bir topluma kolay bir biçimde uyum sağlayabilen homojen bir grup olamamalarıdır. Özürlü bireyler bir grup olarak ele alındığında, normallikten daha çok cinsiyet, içinde yer aldıkları azınlık grubu, etnik zemin, cinsel yönelim, yaş, yetenek, dini inançlar, maddi durum, iş sahibi olma gibi farklılıklar boyutunda karakterize edildikleri görülmektedir. Bu bir gerçektir ki, içlerinde bulundukları durum tam olarak anlaşılamamakta veya geleneksel normallik kavramını ve kültürel açıdan baskın tek bir değerler setini temel alan her hangi bir teori veya politikaya çevrilememektedir (Oliver & Barnes,1998,53).
21. yüzyılın başında, özürlülük olgusu sosyal politika gündeminin ilk başlarında yer almakta olup, sosyal politika konuları politik gündemin ilk başlarında yer almaya devam etmektedir (Priestley, 2000,421). İngiltere’de İkinci Dünya Savaşından bu yana işçi ve sosyal demokrat politikanın merkezi noktası sosyal politika olmuştur (Driver & Martell, 2002,77). 1997 yılından bu yana İşçi Partisi özürlü bireylerin yaşam kalitesini arttırmak amacıyla 1995/2005 İngiltere Özürlüler Ayrımcılıkla Mücadele Yasası ve Yeni Eşitlik ve İnsan Hakları Komisyonunun kurulması gibi önemli politik gelişmelere imza atmıştır.
İngiliz Parlamentosunda özürlü bireylere yönelik ayrımcılık karşıtı yasanın çıkarılmasına yönelik ilk girişim 1982 yılında başlatıldı. On üç başarısız girişimin ardından (Barnes & Oliver, 1995, 111), 1995 yılında İngiltere Özürlüler Ayrımcılıkla Mücadele Yasası İngiliz Parlamentosu tarafından kabul edildi. Bu yasayla; işverenlerin, hizmet sağlayıcıların, ev sahiplerinin, okul, yüksekokul ve üniversitelerin yerine getirmeleri gereken bazı yükümlülüklerin konulması yoluyla özürlü bireylerin toplumsal yaşama katılma haklarını iyileştirmeye yönelik düzenlemeler yapıldı. Aralık 1995’de bazı ilgili konularda düzenlemeye gidilerek işverenlere yönelik bir yasa olarak ortaya konuldu. İngiltere Özürlüler Ayrımcılıkla Mücadele Yasası, Özürlü Hakları Çalışma Grubu’nun tavsiyeleri ışığında geniş bir önlemler paketini içerek şekilde yapılandırılmış olup (Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit,2005,24), özürlü bireylerin başından sonuna kadar anı güçte yürüttükleri kampanyaların direkt bir sonucu olarak ortaya çıkmıştır (Sayce & O’Brien, 2004, 663). Yasanın içerdiği önemli bir düzenleme, kamu sektörüne özürlü bireylerin eşit haklara sahip olmalarını teşvik etme yönünde bir yükümlülük vermesidir. İngiltere Özürlüler Ayrımcılıkla Mücadele Yasasıyla birlikte, özürlülere yönelik uygulanmakta olan kota şeması kaldırılmış olup, yerine önemli bir gelişme olarak görülen istihdam teşviki getirilmiştir. Bunun yanında, ilgili yasa, özürlü bireylere özürlü olmaları nedeniyle işyerlerinde ayrımcılığa uğradıklarını düşündüklerinde işverenlerine yönelik dava açabilmelerini kanuni bir hak olarak tanımlamaktadır (Hyde, 2000, 329).
2005 yılında, İngiltere Özürlüler Ayrımcılıkla Mücadele Yasasında bazı değişiklikler yapılmıştır. Ancak, yapılan bu değişiklikler yasanın 1995 versiyonunun dayandığı temel ilke veya yaklaşımlardan daha çok yasanın 1995 versiyonunda yer alan mevcut alanların genişletilmesi, güçlendirilmesi ve mevcut görevlere yeni görevlerin eklenmesi şeklinde olmuştur. Örneğin, yasanın 2005 versiyonu 1995 versiyonunda yer alan özürlülük tanımını genişleterek, kanser, HIV, multiple sclerosis ve ruh sağlığı problemlerinin yol açtığı durumların kişinin gündelik yaşamını etkilemeye başladığı noktayı yasa güvencesi altına alınan nokta olarak kabul etmek yerine, söz konusu sağlık problemlerinin teşhis edilmesini yasa güvencesinin başladığı nokta olarak belirlemiştir. Bir diğer değişiklik, 1995 versiyonunda ruh sağlığı bozukluklarının yol açtıkları rahatsızlıklar ancak “klinik açıdan genel kabul gören” rahatsızlıklar olduğunda bu tür rahatsızlıkları olan bireylerin söz konusu ayrımcılık yasasının güvencesi altına alınabileceğine işaret eden “klinik açıdan genel kabul görme” ibaresinin 2005 versiyonu ile birlikte kaldırılmasıdır. Böylece, bu ifade nedeniyle bu yasa tarafından güvence altına alınmayan ve sahip olduklara haklar tecavüze uğrayan ruh sağlığı problemleri yaşayan birçok bireyin bu nedenden dolayı aşağılanma ve stres yaşamaları önlenmiştir.
2005 İngiltere Özürlüler Ayrımcılıkla Mücadele Yasasıyla birlikte, özürlü bireylere toplu taşım araçlarından yararlanmalarını kolaylaştırmaya, ulaşılabilirliklerini sağlamaya yönelik yeni haklar tanınmıştır. Bunun yanında yasa, daha önce değinildiği üzere kurumsal ayrımcılıkla mücadele de kamu sektörüne önemli görevler vermekte olup, mahalli idarelerin birçok işlevini içerecek şekilde genişletilmiştir. Ancak, mevcut durum göz önüne alındığında mahalli idarelere verilen görevler konusunda (özürlü mahkumlara yönelik düzenlemeler, seçimlere katılım, kaldırımlar ve otoyolların ulaşılabilirliklerinin düzenlenmesi vb.) belirsizlik hüküm sürmektedir. Ayrıca,Yasanın 2005 versiyonuyla birlikte, özürlü kiracılara kiraladıkları ev içerisinde gerekli düzenlemeler yapabilme ve yardımcı araç ve servislerden yararlanabilme hakları da tanınmıştır. Bunun yanında, özürlü bireylere (özürlü konuklar dahil) üye sayısı 25 olan özel klüplere üye olabilmelerini kolaylaştırmaya yönelik haklar da tanınmıştır. Son olarak, yasanın 2005 versiyonunda ilk defa, özürlü kurul/komisyon üyelerinin ayrımcılığa uğramalarını önlemeye yönelik düzenlemeler getirilmiştir (DRC, 2005a).
Bir diğer önemli politik gelişme, Yeni Eşitlik ve İnsan Hakları Komisyonunun kurulmasıdır. Bu komisyonun kurulmasıyla birlikte, mevcut üç eşitlik komisyonunun (Özürlü Hakları Komisyonu (DRC), Irksal Eşitlik Komisyonu (CRE) ve Fırsat Eşitliği Komisyonu (EOC) ) çalışmalarının bir araya getirilmesi hedeflenmiş olup, işyerinde yaş, din, inanç ve cinsel yönelime yönelik kanun dışı ayrımcı uygulamaları önleme sorumluluğu bu komisyona verilmiştir (Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, 2005,24). Özellikle, Özürlü Hakları Komisyonu’nun kurulması İngiltere’de özürlü bireyler açısından olumlu büyük bir gelişmeyi temsil etmektedir. Söz konusu komisyon 1995 İngiltere Özürlüler Ayrımcılıkla Mücadele Yasasının icracı komisyonu olarak özürlü bireylere yönelik ayrımcılığı sonlandırmak ve fırsat eşitliğini sağlamak amacıyla Nisan 2000’de bağımsız bir komisyon olarak kurulmuştur. Komisyon kendisine verilen bu görevleri, özürlü bireylerin sahip oldukları haklardan faydalanabilmelerini sağlamaya yönelik olarak özürlü bireylere, işverenlerine ve hizmet sağlayıcılara tavsiye ve bilgi vermek; ortaya çıkan problemlerin iş mahkemesine veya diğer mahkemelere gidilmeksizin çözülmesine yardımcı olmak; yasanın limitlerini test etmeye yönelik kanuni davaları desteklemek; özürlü bireyler için bağımsız Özürlülük Uzlaştırma Hizmeti ve hizmet sağlayıcıları temin etmek; kanunu güçlendirmeye yönelik kampanyalar düzenlemek ve özürlülük konusunda araştırma ve yıllık faaliyet raporu düzenlemek gibi çeşitli aktivitelerle yerine getirmektedir (DRC,2005b).
Özet olarak, yukarıda değinildiği üzere, özellikle özürlü bireylerin yaşamları üzerinde olumlu etkiler yaratan politik açısından birçok önemli gelişme olmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın amacı, 1995/2005 İngiltere Özürlüler Ayrımcılıkla Mücadele Yasasıyla ilgili bazı temel mevcut tema/konuların eleştirisel bir bakış açısıyla ilgili literatürün ışığında ele alınarak gözden geçirilmesidir. Bu çalışmanın zemininde, şimdilerde İngiltere’de olduğu gibi ülkemizde de özürlü olmayan bireylerle eşit koşullara sahip olabilmeyi sağlayabilme açısında ayırımcılıkla mücadelenin üzerinde önemle durulan kritik bir konu olması yatmaktadır.
5378 sayılı Türkiye Özürlüler Yasasının Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi tarafından 1 Temmuz 2005 tarihinde kabul edilmesiyle birlikte, söz konusu yasayla ilgili yönetmelik çalışmaları ve farklı platformlarda tartışılmakta olan özürlü ayrımcılığının tanımlanması çalışmaları ile T.C. Başbakanlık Özürlüler İdaresi Başkanlığı özürlülük konusuna farklı bir boyut getirmeye çalışmaktadır. Bu gelişmelerin ışığında, bu çalışmanın İngiltere’de Özürlüler Ayrımcılıkla Mücadele Yasasıyla ilgili mevcut durumun ortaya konulması yoluyla Türkiye’de yeni bir konu olan ayrımcılıkla mücadele konusunu şekillendirmek ve doğru olarak yönlendirmekte yardımcı olacağı düşülmektedir.
© 2005- T.C. Başbakanlık Özürlüler İdaresi - Bilgi İşlem Dairesi Başkanlığı