“Persoanele cu handicap se bucură de protecţie specială”*: Discursul instigator la ura la adresa persoanelor cu dizabilitati

Alegerile pentru Parlamentul European au readus in atentie tematica proliferarii discursului jignitor la adresa unor minoritati. In acest context, vreau sa examinez pe scurt o specie a acestui discurs mai putin studiata si asumata la noi, dar nu mai putin nociva, si anume cea care vizeaza copiii si adultii cu dizabilitati, si pe insotitorii lor. Acest tip de discurs este utilizat in mod curent, vizeaza persoanele cu dizabilitati direct sau indirect, este mai mult sau mai putin grosier, incluzand insulta nedisimulata, ofensa institutionalizata si scaparea gregara. Nu este apanajul nici unei categorii sociale, ci dimpotriva este cultivat in mod democratic atat de politicieni, cat si de oameni “de rand”. O nota privind terminologia – am in vedere si sintagma de “discurs instigator de ura” (“hate speech”), de inspiratie anglofona, poate mai familiar in acest context, atat timp cat il folosim in sensul lui cel mai larg posibil, si deci nu neaparat strict in sens juridic.

Tipologia discursului instigator de ura la adresa persoanelor cu dizabilitati e variata si complexa. In mod evident am in vedere in primul rand caracterul uzual al invectivelor de genul “handicapat”, “retard” si altele, probabil mai corozive decat “tigan”, si mai vitriolice decat “poponar”. Daca acestea din urma au fost expulzate cel putin formal din vocabularul “politically correct”, depreciativele desemnand dizabilitatea sunt consacrate atat la nivel constitutional (“handicap”), impamantenind simbolic politica oficiala de segregare si brutalizare a persoanelor cu dizabilitati, cat si uzitate in mod frecvent, bunaoara de catre comentatori si politicieni pentru a-si ataca adversarii (“retard”). Putem invoca in egala masura portretizarea persoanelor cu dizabilitati ca tapi ispasitori in contextul crizei economice, spoliatori ai societatii, abuzand fraudulos de compasiunea si solidaritatea publica –  Sebastian Lazaroiu in calitatea lui de fost ministru al muncii ofera un exemplu ilustru. Sau locul comun conform caruia persoanele cu dizabilitati sunt inerent si inevitabil periculoase, justificand masuri de control nediferentiate si extraordinare - spre exemplu un articol pe care l-am citit zilele trecute care punea automat problema cresterii accidentelor rutiere in romania in carca "handicapatilor" care obtin permisele de conducere fraudulos, fara a oferi vreo dovada in acest sens.

Mult mai pervers insa, autoritatile publice in special (si nu numai) practica un discurs cu semnificatie dubla, aparent invocand obligatia paternalista a statului de a proteja persoanele cu dizabilitati, dar in practica intensificand controlul si suprimarea sistematica a acestora. Am in vedere spre exemplu masuri desemnate violent si/sau arhaic precum “interdictia” sau “institutionalizarea”, care in mod oficial sunt descrise ca “masuri de protectie” ale persoanei in cauza. In aceasta logica, notiuni precum “acces” au deseori in practica semnificatia inversa de “restrictie”, “compasiune” are semnificatia de “dispret” samd.

Mai jos cateva mostre fascinante care demonstreaza cum prejudecata impotriva dizabilitatii este moneda curenta, practicata universal cu dezinvoltura si naturalete. Primele trei sunt extrase din dosarul cauzei Stoian v Romania pe care am introdus-o recent la cedo, privind dreptul la educatie al unui copil cu dizabilitati, ultimul dintr-un document emis de politie intr-un dosar al colegilor de la CRJ:

Unitatea noastra prin insasi natura ei, nu are nici un fel de conditii pentru terapia persoanelor cu handicap, noi fiind specializati pentru activitati cultural educative de masa in vederea depistarii talentelor si indrumarea lor catre activitati de performanta. (directoarea unui club al copiilor in Bucuresti)

Domnul director considera din parte cadrelor didactice a directiunii, a colectivului de parinti a existat multa intelegere de-a lungul celor cinci ani, si cu toate acestea a fost data in judecata. …Din partea profesorilor, parintilor, copiilor a existat bunavointa, dar trebuie aparate si drepturile celorlalti copii. De aceea domnul director si profesorii ii vor interzice accesul [insotitorului copilului cu dizabilitati] prezenta la ore. Parintii sustin decizia conducerii. (proces verbal sedinta cu parintii, scoala de masa)

“Referitor la petitia adresata acestei sectii [de politie]…prin care ati solicitat sa va fie precizate conditiile in care fiul dvoastra [persoana cu dizabilitati locomotorii] au acces in pe drumurile publice precum si in incinta unitatilor de invatamant de masa, va comunicam urmatoarele: [Cf Art. 15 din L. 448], “persoanele cu handicap au acces liber si egal la orice forma de educatie, indiferent de varsta, in conformitate cu tipul, gradul de handicap si nevoile educationale ale acestora”, astfel ca nu exista nici un fel de restrictie privind integrarea individuala a fiului dumneavoastra in unitati de invatamant de masa. De asemenea, in ceea ce priveste accesul copilui SS pe drumurile publice, precum si al insotitorului acestuia, nu exista nici un fel de restrictie, intrucat, [cf. art 25 din Constitutie], “dreptul la libera circulatie, in tara si in strainatate, este garantat”. 

In acest context al raporturilor educationale situatia de fata trebuie analizata pornind de la premiza ca sarcina de a educa un minor  (abandonat de familie si crescut intr-un mediu ostil) nu este o sarcina usoara si nici o sarcina ce poate fi indeplinita intotdeauna si in toate cazurile numai cu mijloace de maxima blandete. Sunt situatii in care trebuie sa se procedeze, dimpotriva cu fermitate si chiar cu severitate in scopul de a-l corija pe minor si de a-l determina la o conduita corespunzatoare.

Pe de o parte, unii ignora sau se revolta impotriva oricarei tentative de a sanctiona violenta de limbaj in public, condamnand-o ca o manifestare neavenita a mult blamatei corectitudini politice, sau negand ca ar avea implicatii semnificative. Chiar unii colegi din societatea civila minimalizeaza sau neaga existenta sau prevalenta in Romania a discursului instigator la ura care vizeaza persoanele cu dizabilitati, bunaoara in contextul mai sus-amintitei campanii     desfasurate in contexul alegerilor europarlamentare, care priveste aproape exclusiv romii si minoritatile sexuale - vezi aici si aici ("Studiul “Discursul instigator la ura in Romania” identifica principalele tinte ale DIU in Romania: minoritatea roma, cea evreiasca, maghiara si LGBT").  Limbajul jignitor la adresa persoanelor cu dizabilitati este, dupa cum am aratat, institutionalizat si prevalent. El reflecta fobii si prejudecati bine inradacinate si corespunde unor politici publice care izoleaza si victimizeaza. Ignorarea acestei problematici contribuie la normalizarea ei. Nu e de mirare ca orasele noastre sunt inaccesibile, ca copiii nostri (cu dizabilitati) nu merg la scoala, si ca atunci cand merg la scoala sunt abuzati sau neglijati, ca fratii si parintii nostri (cu dizabilitati) sunt brutalizati si isi traiesc toata viata inchisi in institutii in conditii mizere.

*Extras din Articolul 50 din Constitutie. 

Time for the European Court to recognise that children with disabilities also have a right to education

The European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) has generated comparatively little case law under Article 2 of Protocol 1 on the right to education, only a tiny proportion of which is related to children with disabilities. There are only a few hopelessly dated inadmissibility decisions dating back to the days of the old Commission in the 80s and 90s (although also note the more recent decision in the case Groza v. Romania, summarised here). The Commission’s scrutiny in cases such as Graeme v the United Kingdom and Klerks v the Netherlands was generally very deferential, leaving contracting states almost full discretion to decide what the best way for providing education to children with disabilities was.  The putative explanation for this state of affairs resides in the negative formulation of Article 2 of Protocol 1, guaranteeing solely a right of access to existing educational facilities. In addition, States benefit from a wide margin of appreciation in social and economic matters, presumed to encompass almost any provision aimed at facilitating the inclusion and equality of people with disabilities more generally, whether we talk about accessibility, social benefits, deinstitutionalisation, support with exercising legal capacity or reasonable accommodation. The Court has traditionally felt much more at large managing psychiatric compulsion, including involuntary detention, incapacitation, prison conditions, which is a story better left for a different occasion.

Three things have happened since the early Commission cases that may signal a change of course at the Court. First, the U.N. Disability Convention came into force, including a commitment to inclusive education under Article 24, and was ratified by most Council of Europe Member States. Second, a more solid consensus emerged that inclusive education delivers the best outcome for children with disabilities and is otherwise beneficial for society as a whole. Third, the Court has in the recent years adopted a number of judgments concerning the discrimination of Roma minority children in education that are also relevant to children with disabilities. On the one hand, these rulings demonstrate that the Court could be persuaded to tackle ingrained discrimination in education, overruling its previous hands-off approach. On the other hand, they leave disabled children in an uncertain position. The Court by and large accepted that certain Central and Eastern European states routinely and unfairly directed Roma children towards special schools that use a more basic curriculum and which isolates them from the wider population. Thus, it implicitly appeared to validate the very existence of special schools as the natural solution for educating “truly” disabled children. It is therefore high time we challenged the Court to review and update its approach to the right to education of children with disabilities, by bringing the right cases to its attention. This is easier said than done, considering the very substantial and well-documented obstacles that restrict the access to justice of people with disabilities in general, and children with disabilities in particular. 

A case that we lodged recently has the potential to lay down the markers for the principle of inclusive education in the Court’s jurisprudence, much like the seminal judgment in the case D.H. and Others v Czech Republic did for Roma children. The case Stoian v Romania  appears to have all the right ingredients: a child with substantial support needs, a monumental failure by the state to meet these needs, illustrative of deeper systemic problems, and years of substantial and largely fruitless engagement with the state by a militant (and legally-trained) mother, before finally going to Court.

 (credit: MEDIAFAX FOTO// OCTAV GANEA)

Stefan (pictured above), a thirteen-year old child with spastic tetraplegia, a condition characterised by severely impaired functioning in all limbs, was referred to a mainstream school in 2007. He required extensive support and assistance: intermittent but substantial personal assistance with walking, going to the toilet and other tasks on a daily basis, personalised support with studying, including from remedial teachers, a range of reasonable accommodation measures to adapt the physical space in school and the learning processes to his needs, an accessible environment, and substantial medical services during and outside school to ensure his rehabilitation, and prevent a deterioration in his health. The authorities’ failure to ensure almost any support was comprehensive and on-going – Stefan’s needs were not evaluated in any detail, his progress was not monitored, he lacked the support from a remedial teacher, the school was largely inaccessible, he lacked a personal assistant, he was not able to undertake any meaningful therapy, with irreversible and life-long damage to his health.

The applicants engaged in an increasingly confrontational exchange of letters with authorities, as well as extensive litigation aimed at securing the support that the authorities had to provide under the law. School staff, other children and their parents gradually became more hostile towards Stefan and his mother, who suffered low level and on-going abuse and harassment, withholding at the same time the limited support that had previously been provided on an informal basis. In addition, the authorities constantly put pressure on Stefan’s mother to accept home schooling, notwithstanding the fact that year after year Stefan had formally been referred to a mainstream school. The conflict culminated on 3 April 2013, when police officers invited by the headmaster forcefully and violently removed the mother from school, while she was helping her son with his daily physical exercises, causing her extensive injuries which required 45 days to heal. Stefan had to drop out, and with great difficulty obtained a transfer to a different school, where he continues to encounter similar problems.

The applicants’ violent removal from school is a very tangible illustration of the fact that mainstream schools in Romania are unwelcoming and downright hostile territory for children with disabilities.  More broadly, the case demonstrates the huge discrepancy between the official rhetoric on inclusion and the reality on the ground for children and adults with disabilities living in the community. The school and the state agencies involved, as well as parents of non-disabled children made it constantly clear that the only way Stefan could be integrated in school was on the system’s own terms, and that no changes could be made to the existing environment. The only alternative was home schooling, which in practice meant no education and perpetual exclusion.

For additional analysis and information on new developments in this case (and other disability cases at the European Court, including the Grand Chamber case Gherghina v Romania, also about the right to education, and where also I represent the applicant) please follow this blog. Besides being extremely interesting and compelling, this case is also very complex factually and legally requiring extensive engagement from the applicant’s mother and the two lawyers involved (Catalina Radulescu,  a Bucharest-based lawyer is co-counsel in this case), acting on a pro bono basis. Extensive litigation takes place at the national level in parallel with the case before the Court, while at the same time the applicant’s position in his new school continues to be difficult.  It shapes up to be a long fight, but we very much trust that the Court will right the injustice done to the applicant, and in the process bring its case-law in line with international standards on the rights of persons with disabilities.

PS: The Court has communicated the case Stoian v Romania to the Romanian Government in record time, on 8 July 2014, four months after it was lodged. The communication and the questions addressed to the parties, available HERE, are well worth reading if you are interested in the right to inclusive education. 

Access to justice denied: The betrayal of victims with disabilities by courts and prosecutors in Romania

Another scandal has recently broken out in Romania around accusations that Clara, a sweet 9-year-old girl with Down syndrome, was beaten up at the special school in Bucharest she was attending. Allegations of abuse against people with disabilities occur regularly to an increasingly indifferent reception from the general public and the authorities. Before Clara, we received news about children tied to beds in a hospital in Bacau. Before that, there was the scandal about a social care home in Oradea where physical and sexual abuse of young residents was rife. Before that, there were the sad on-going reports of young severely disabled youth in a social care home in Bucharest permanently tied to their beds and starved, outsiders’ access to the institution denied. Serial allegations of abuse against children and adults with disabilities institutionalised in separate schools, separate institutions and separate hospitals, stretch back as far as I can remember, certainly since the fall of communism in 1989. There is one common thread connecting all these incidents, aside from public indifference. Nothing ever happens – nobody loses their job or goes to prison, no institution closes down and nobody ever leaves the institution. This brings me to the topic of this post (the first in a series hopefully) - the complete absence of remedies in Romania for rights violations against persons with disabilities.

Romania stands out among European countries in terms of the number and range of disability cases that reached the European Court of Human Rights, a relatively recent phenomenon. We got cases on involuntary detention, on rape, on legal capacity, on ill treatment by the police, on conditions in institutions, on accessibility, on education, on people who died in institutions because of cold and hunger and lack of medical treatment. Currently, Romania has the only two disability cases pending before the Grand Chamber: Gherghina and Campeanu. The absence of remedies is a common feature in almost all these cases, apparent at different levels of inquiry: exhaustion of domestic remedies, procedural obligations under article 5, the right to an effective remedy, procedural obligations to investigate abuse, or the right to a fair trial. One of the requests that the State received from the European Court in Campeanu was to provide examples of successful prosecutions of abuse in institutions. Notwithstanding the notorious fact that abuse is rife in Romanian institutions, the State was not able to provide one example. On the other hand, we could show that no prosecutions resulted in relation to the hundreds of people who died at the Poiana Mare Hospital during consecutive winters at the beginning of the 2000s.

The European Court recognised the crisis of the court system in Romania, making some remarkably sweeping statements on the issue of domestic remedies. There is no remedy in Romania to challenge the necessity of compulsory psychiatric examination taken under Article 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court said (C.B. v Romania). In Cristian Teodorescu v Romania and B. v Romania (No.2), the Court identified gaps in the Romanian mental health law, which restricted the access to justice of persons seeking to complain against their involuntary commitment in psychiatric hospital. It was not surprising, the Court concluded, that no complaints based on this law had been introduced over a period of ten years since it has come into force on 8 August 2002. In Parascineti, the Court noted that the Government was not able to demonstrate that any complaints had been filed before domestic courts regarding living conditions in a psychiatric hospital for the period 2002 to 2010. In Stelian Tanase, the Court determined that a national court’s contempt towards a person with disabilities may render a remedy that is effective in principle, such as a torts action on the basis of Arts. 998 and 999 of the Civil Code, ineffective.

Elsewhere, in Filip v Romania, the Court found a procedural breach of Article 3 on account of the “passivity” of authorities in dealing with the applicant’s complaints related to the living conditions during his commitment in a psychiatric hospital, as well as to the alleged ill-treatment suffered during that time. An additional violation of Article 5§4 was based on the prosecutors’ refusal to decide on the merits of the complaint regarding the lawfulness of the commitment, as well as the length of the procedures in the same case. In B v Romania, Archip v Romania and M.B. v Romania, the Court found violations of the procedural arm of Article 3, on account of the authorities’ failures to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment against persons with mental health problems, including rape.

On more benign, but no less important rights such as social support, accessibility and education, the situation is equally problematic. One of our main claims in Gherghina, currently pending before the Grand Chamber, is that legislation on accessibility duties is so vague as to render any remedies at the national level illusory and ineffective. I am currently looking at the remedies that a child with disabilities may use to complain in relation to a breach of their right to quality inclusive education, in relation to another case pending before the Court, Stoian. Considering the sheer complexity of an ever shifting legislation, the vague and non-committal wording of these provisions, the presence of a multiplicity of state agencies with overlapping and conflicting duties, I strongly doubt victims of discrimination have any remedies to exhaust in Romania before going to Strasbourg, similarly to the cases on segregation of Roma in education against Greece.

These cases reveal a systemic problem in Romania whereby courts, prosecutors and other agencies systematically defer to doctors, educators and other “professionals” to take life and death decisions on behalf of persons with disabilities. In doing so, they share the outlook of Romanian society more broadly, that would rather look away when a person with disabilities is abused. However, in doing so, judges and prosecutors swim against the tide. Sooner or later, something must change. Romania is firmly under international spotlight this year for its treatment of persons with disabilities, and for a good reason. As mentioned above, two leading disability cases against Romania are pending before the Grand Chamber of the European Court. Disability is one of the issues on the agenda for the Romania country visit of the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner at the end of March. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture will also visit Romania this year, and is likely to include psychiatric institutions and/or social care homes on its agenda. Al Jazeera has been filming a documentary slamming Romania’s failure to reform its institutions, which will probably also air in March. Finally, the European Commission is putting increased pressure on Romania to adopt its disability strategy, in order to better spend EU funds in this area. Who knows, maybe Clara’s case is the marker for a new beginning after all.   

The next article in the series on remedy will look at whether the European Court of Human Rights is a viable remedy for applicants with disabilities.

PS: All judgments mentioned in this article are available on HUDOC, the European Court's database.

Inca o sansa pierduta - raportul CNCD/IPP pe accesibilitate

A trecut mai bine de o satapmana de la lansarea raportului realizat de CNCD si IPP privind “accesibilizarea spatiului public pentru persoanele cu dizabilitati”. Raportul e parte a unei campanii prefatate de un videoclip despre care am mai scris AICI.

Una din problemele mari cu care m-am confruntat pledand in fata CEDO in cazuri pe accesibilitate a fost tocmai lipsa surselor credibile care sa demonstreze ceea ce stim cu totii – ca mediul fizic la noi in tara nu prea e accesibil. Pe cat sunt de importante analizele independente (vorba vine) pentru a acoperi aceasta lacuna, pe atat sunt de rare. Eu cunosc o singura astfel de cercetare datand din 2006. Prin urmare cred ca e oportun sa fac niste comentarii pe marginea acestui raport, pana cand nu dispare cu totul din atentia publica. Mai vreau sa stabilesc ca sunt o persoana avizata, cu precizarea ca perspectiva mea este cea unui avocat. Lucrez de ani intregi in domeniul dizabilitatii, iar pe accesibilitate in mod special am lucrat in mai multe cazuri importante la CEDO: Farcas v Romania (sedinta publica, decizie 14 septembrie 2010), Gherghina v Romania (trimis la Marea Camera, sedinta publica 12 noiembrie 2014), Elvira Popa v Romania (pe rol), Stoian v Romania (pe rol).

Metodologia raportului, constand in principal in formularea unor cereri sub Legea informatiilor de interes public, nu este de natura a oferi o imagine corecta cu privire gradul real de accesibilizare a institutiilor cu pricina. In primul rand multe institutii vor minti – o fac in mod current, si bunaoara nimic nu le-a impiedicat sa o faca in corespondenta cu CEDO. In al doilea rand este binecunoscut faptul ca institutiile nu cunosc parametrii obligatiilor care le revin prin lege. Problema rampelor construite in bataie de joc e notorie, ele sunt vizibile la tot pasul. Ei bine, cel mai probabil institutiile au raportat aceste rampe ca fiind conforme. In sfarsit, chestionarele folosite sunt simpliste – evaluand de exemplu accesibilitatea mediului fizic doar prin raportare la existenta rampelor. O metodologie mai potrivita a fost folosita in raportul FSD 2006, care a elaborat chestionare incluzand indicatori multipli de accesibilitate, care mai apoi au fost completate la fata locului de echipe de monitori. Sau metodologia raportului recent publicat in Moldova, unde au fost efectuate masuratori complexe la fata locului privind gradul de accesibilizare a unui esantion de cladiri publice. Sunt convins ca aceste monitorizari nu se pot face stand la birou, ci este indispensabil mersul la fata locului, preferabil insotit de o persoana cu dizabilitati,

Autorii raportului nu prea tin seama de natura servicului oferit in cladirea cu pricina. Una e administratia financiara unde intri si stai cinci minute, si alta e ditamai universitatea unde stai patru ani, cu o infrastructura mult mai complexa. Pe de alta parte, concentrarea pe obiective publice izolate e neproductiva, ce conteaza e un lant neintrerupt de servicii accesibilizate, cu alte cuvinte trebuie sa fii in stare sa pleci de acasa, sa urci in metrou, sa traversezi strada, si sa ajungi la universitate unde sa fii in stare sa studiezi cot la cot cu ceilalti studenti. Nu prea ma ajuta in nici un fel faptul ca intersectia x este accesibilizata daca transportul public nu e, si bordurile din zona sunt prea ridicate.

Principala cheie pentru rezolvarea problemei accesibilitatii in opinia mea (sau cel putin una dintre ele), este construirea unui sistem de remedii functional, care sa permita titularilor dreptului sa solicite executarea sa in instanta. Raportul din Moldova mai sus-amintit contine o analiza a sistemului de remedii de acolo, punand punctul pe I:

“nerespectarea normativelor în construcții privind accesibilitatea persoanelor cu dizabilități la infrastructură, chiar dacă prevede răspundere administrativă care se sancționeazăcu amendă, nu este suficientă, deoarece nu împiedică nerespectarea sistematicăa acestor normative, și nici nu obligă la compensarea costurilor legate de înlăturarea deficiențelor în aplicarea normativelor respective în documentația de proiect sau în proiectele de execuție.

Din pacate, raportul CNCD/IPP nu contine o astfel de analiza. In loc suntem serviti cu o enumerare anodina si fara sens a realizarilor CNCD in materie, egale fix cu zero. Interventia CNCD este structurata in doua parti. Prima parte include eternele tabele si scheme detaliind numarul petitiilor primite in functie de criteriul incident si deznodamantul lor. Nu este clar ce semnifica aceste tabele, care sunt copiate mecanic de la un an la altul in in rapoartele CNCD. Sugestia e ca ele ar constitui un indicator al fenomenului discriminarii in Romania. Raportat la numarul total al persoanelor cu dizabilitati din Romania, faptul ca CNCD primeste annual 20-30-40 plangeri (cu obiect neidentificat pentru ca ele nu sunt publicate), inseamna cel mult o incercare de manipulare a realitatii sau de autolegitimare frauduloasa in fata criticilor. A doua parte a analizei, traditionala si ea, este o insiruire fara cap si coada a cazurilor CNCD-ului in care este incident criteriul dizabilitatii. Doar un singur caz din cele unsprezece raportate – cel privind strada nebetonata din Busteni, si ala foarte suspect in lipsa deciziei in sine –priveste tema centrala a raportului – accesibilizarea mediului construit de catre autoritatile publice. Dupa cum am explicat pe scurt aici, CNCD-ul nu considera lipsa accesibilitatii ca fiind o forma de discriminare sanctionabila sub OG 137, din motive de competenta materiala, sau de fond. Mai mult decat atat, ce nu raporteaza CNCD-ul e mult mai interesant decat ce alege sa puna in vitrina, in conditiile in care institutia e complet netransparenta, iar jurisprudenta e haotica: un fel de in fata-i vopsit gardul si in spate leopardul. Pe langa faptul ca prestatia CNCD-ului nu este examinata critic si obiectiv, lipseste cu totul o analiza a eficientei (sau nu) a altor potentiale remedii. Slava domnului, gratie unui grup de persone cu dizabilitati si avocati hotarati, exista acum o jurispudenta relativ usor accesibila si direct relevanta (macar ca e negativa, dar cu invatamintele ei) pentru tematica raportului, atat in instantele interne, inclusiv la cel mai inalt nivel, ICCJ, cat si, iata, la CEDO. Aceasta este inca o lacuna de neinteles a raportului.

Raportul concluzioneaza totusi ca “in Romania mediul public nu este inca accesibil persoanelor cu dizabilitati in cea mai mare parte”.Avand in vedere ca premisele sale metodologice sunt suspecte, dupa cum am aratat mai sus, ma tem ca aceasta concluzie este prea optimista, si nici nu incepe macar sa surprinda dezastrul din Romania si drama personala a zecilor de mii de persone cu dizabilitati care isi rateaza viata din cauza lipsei accesibilitatii. In mod constant, raportul contine afirmatii de tipul “Universitatea din Pitesti asigura maini curente în cladirile sale, precum si un interpret”. Este insa sau nu accesibila universitatea in intregul ei? Eu stiu ca in ansamblul ei nu este, si ma judec pe chestia asta la Marea Camera a CEDO, in cazul Gherghina, si daca nu e, ce rost are sa spui numai ca are maini curente? In ipoteza in care raportul sugereaza ca CNCD-ul este un remediu eficient pentru plangerile pe discriminare, el denatureaza inca o data realitatea. Cam despre asta e vorba in acest raport. Raportul asta nu merge la ONU, dar caciula singuri, sigur ne-am furat-o. Consemnez din pacate (inca) o ocazie ratata.

As avea si alte observatii, dar ma opresc deocamdata aici.

CNCD-ul nu este solutia, ci parte din problema pe care incercam sa o combatem

Zilele acestea un fimulet cu fetele triste si muzica lacrimogena de rigoare cand vine vorba de dizabilitati anunta o noua campanie a CNCD (si a IPP) pe tema accesibilitatii. Mesajul fimuletului: “Accesibilitatea este un drept, nu este un beneficiu”. 

Pe cat de adevarata e aceasta propozitie, pe atat de goala de continut. Accesibilitatea este deja, pe undeva, un drept, nu asta e neaparat problema. Legislatia romaneasca consacra un sistem de obligatii de asigurare a accesibilizarii inca din 1999, prin OG 102, si poate de si mai inainte. In timp ce proclama grandios ca “accesibilitatea este … un factor esential de exercitare a drepturilor … persoanelor cu handicap in societate”, legea actuala (448/2006) a diluat in acelasi timp in mod decisiv termenii OG 102, lasand obligatia de accesibilizare la cheremul constructorilor si altor furnizori de servicii. In fine, legea mai treaca mearga. Cumva contra intuitiv, problemele reale nici macar nu tin neaparat de bani, ci rezida, intre altele, in:

•        -  lipsa unui mecanism coerent si eficient de monitorizare si implementare a obligatiilor de lege;
•           lipsa implicarii sistematice a persoanelor cu dizabilitati in executarea acestor obligatii;
•     lipsa coordonarii intre furnizorii de servicii publice pentru a realiza un lant neintrerupt de facilitati accesibile;
•        lipsa unui sistem functional de remedii la dispozitia victimelor pentru a solicita implementarea legii, inclusiv o legislatie anti-discriminare ineficienta si un organism de implementare ipocrit si incompetent (vezi demonstratia mai jos)…si altele

Ori acest spot pastreaza lucrurile in zona convenabila a principiilor lipsite de substanta si de angajament.

Pe de alta parte, tin sa subliniez dublul standard promovat de cncd atunci cand se raporteaza la obligatia in cauza. Cui declara ritos cncd-ul ca accesibilitatea este un drept? Structurilor statului, normal, principalul debitor al obligatiei. Stati putin, dar cncd-ul nu e structura a statului? Si a propos, cncd-ul nu are nici un rol in a monitoriza implementarea legii 448 zisa a drepturilor persoanelor cu handicap? Bat saua sa priceapa calul, si revin la enuntul din lege: “accesibilitate este … un factor esential de exercitare a drepturilor … persoanelor cu handicap in societate”. Nu un factor intre alti factori, ci unul esential. Per a contrario, fara accesibilitate nu ai acces la drepturi. Un exemplu mai clar de discriminare nici nu exista, o spune legea explicit. Nu e nici o filosofie, buna credinta si minte-n cap sa existe.

Si CNCD-ul ce spune? Pai conform asteptarilor, pusi in fata unor victime in carne si oase, care recurg la ei in disperare de cauza si in ultima instanta, CNCD-ul o da cotita. Decizia 260/2011 este un exemplu de interpretare stramba si contradictorie a legii. Intre alte capete de cerere, petentul, un copil in scaun rulant, s-a plans de lipsa de accesibilitate a infrastructurii stradale. CNCD-ul s-a declarat necompetent: pentru ca “nu este o problema de acces la servicii ci de un drept incalcat prevazut de Legea 448, sanctionarea caruia intra in cometenta DGPPH”. Pe de alta parte, un alt capat de plangere, in acelasi caz, priveste lipsa de accesibilitate a unei institutii publice care furnizeaza servicii educationale. CNCD-ul confirma lipsa accesibilitatii, dar o scalda – ar fi discriminare, dar e dintr-aia benigna, fara sanctiune. De ce? pentru ca nu e “refuz efectiv” in sensul Art 11 al OG 137, petentul fusese inscris la cursuri, e nesansa lui ca nu poate intra in cladire. Fara sanctiune administrativa, parata e doar urecheata parinteste cu o recomandare. (In paranteza fie spus, cu acest caz si altele ne vedem la CEDO, inclusiv pe accesibilitate, si inclusiv din alea vazute de cncd - si sa vezi acolo distractie.)

Clipul asta ilustreaza de minune ambiguitatea cultivata si asumata de CNCD. Pe de o parte face propaganda in sprijinul victimelor, fluturand stindardul minoritarilor la televizor si in ziare, pe de alta parte cand ii parvin cazuri concrete de discriminare le respinge fara menajamente, recurgand la trucuri jenante. La pride parade reprezenantii CNCD sunt in primul rand, la serviciu ii tin in brate pe homofobi ca Puiu Hasotti si altii ca el. Cu o mana ii sanctioneaza pe discriminatori, cu alta ii apara la instanta si la cedo, blamand vicitmele. Cum nu s-a schimbat nimic in cinspe ani, puteti fi siguri ca nu se va schimba nimic nici peste zece, doua zeci sau o suta de ani cu gasca actuala de la CNCD. CNCD-ul a fost asimilat de stat in intregime, transformandu-se din tratament impotriva discriminarii in simptom al bolii insisi. Este un cal troian instrumentat pentru a atrage si neutraliza orice contestatie la adresa status-quo-ului. Fiind insasi radacina raului cu care ne luptam, CNCD-ul trebuie contestat cu putere, reformat radical, sau in ultima instanta, desfiintat pentru a reincepe de la zero.

In fine, revenind la clipul buclucas – e parte a unei campanii de “constientizare”, anuntata cu surle si trambite pe pagina web a CNCD, care marseaza triumfator pe noua limba de lemn a luptei antidiscriminare:

“Constituindu-se intr-unul dintre cele mai numeroase grupuri din categoria persoanelor cu dizabilitati din Romania, persoanele cu dizabilitati locomotorii se confrunta cu situatii frecvente de discriminare sau excludere, avand în vedere lipsa mijloacelor și amenajarilor corespunzatoare pentru accesul in cladiri, la facilitati si servicii publice precum institutii, spitale, transport in comun, taximetre etc.” (sublinierea mea).

Aceste situatii sunt atat de frecvente incat in cinspe ani de existenta CNCD-ului a sanctionat o singura data o autoritate publica in contextul lipsei de accesibilitate a infrastructurii fizice. Si in legatura cu decizia aia singura am rezerve – am aflat de ea din raportul abia lansat in cadrul campaniei mai sus-amintite, si astept sa imi parvina textul ei sa vad ce si cum. Acestea fiind spuse: voua, CNCD-ului, chiar nu va este rusine?

PS 1: A propos, poate cineva sa imi spuna daca sediul CNCD este accesibil cf. standardelor in vigoare?

PS 2: Tocmai am aflat ca sediul CNCD NU este accesibil persoanelor cu dizabilitati.