Introduction
One of the foremost aspects of how the ongoing social, cultural and technological progress affects the qualitative essence of a socio-political reality in Australia is that, as time goes on; Australian society is becoming ever more humane and tolerant. The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated in regards to the fact that Australia is considered one of the most enthusiastic signatories of the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). In this report, I will aim to discuss the discursive significance of UNCRPD, to identify the qualitative aspects of how UNCRPD relates to the themes and motifs, contained in the ‘Labor of love’ video, and to outline what can be considered major challenges on the way of Australian disabled citizens striving to take full advantage of UNCRPD’s provisions.
Definition of the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities
Discussion of how Articles 19 and 23 relate to the video ‘Labor of love
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities can be best defined as a legally binding treaty, drafted and passed by the UN to prevent the societal marginalization of people with life-impending disabilities, throughout the world. The rationale for adopting UNCRPD, as the international law-instrument of protecting the disabled people’s human rights, was the fact that even today; it represents a common practice in many world’s countries (especially the ‘developing’ ones) to subject these people to societal discrimination. According to Karr (2011), “Of the estimated 650 million persons with disabilities worldwide, 80% live in developing countries and are denied access to basic health, education, and support services. The majority of this populace is isolated and discriminated against” (p. 67). This situation, however, can hardly be referred to as being thoroughly appropriate, because the assumption that disabled individuals represent a ‘social burden’, upon which the discriminatory policies against physically and mentally people have traditionally been based, appears conceptually fallacious. The legitimacy of this statement can be explored in the video ‘Labor of love, which promotes the idea that there are no objective reasons to think of disabled individuals, as such that are being doomed to lead the lives of misery.
This video reflects upon the lives of Gerard (diagnosed with hydrocephalus) and Tracy (diagnosed with brain damage, caused by convulsions), which did not only succeed in addressing the challenges of their physical/mental incapacitation but also proved themselves capable of attaining happiness in marriage. Therefore, it will only be logical, on my part, to discuss this video’s implications within the legally binding context of UNCRPD’s Article 19 (Living independently and being included in the community) and Article 23 (Respect for home and the family), as such that are being particularly relevant, in respect to the Gerard and Tracy’s situation.
According to Article 19, “Persons with disabilities have the opportunity to choose their place of residence and where and with whom they live” (para. 2). The watching of the ‘Labor of love’ video does provide us with insight, as to how disabled individuals may go about exploring their right of freedom of residence, guaranteed by UNCRPD, in practice. As it was noted by Annetta De Cata (social worker) in her interview, there was indeed a certain obstacle on the way of Gerard and Tracy striving to live together. This is because, whereas, Tracy requires intensive care, the level of Gerard’s care requirements can be best deemed intermediate or ‘light’. In its turn, this implied that there were no rationale-based reasons for Gerard to apply to be admitted to reside in the same ‘assisted living facility with his loved one. However, had Gerard’s request been denied, it would constitute a violation of Article 19th earlier mentioned provision. Therefore, even though by allowing Gerard to share living quarters with Tracy, the facility’s staff members did transgress some institution’s rules and regulations, there can be few doubts as to the fact that their decision, in this respect, was thoroughly justified. The reason for this is quite apparent – the ratification of a particular international treaty, on the part of state signatories, automatically implies that the concerned parties will be willing to recognize this treaty’s legal supremacy over domestically upheld bylaws (Bahdi, 2002). Therefore, the case of Gerard and Tracy can be well thought of as such that exemplifies how social workers should approach the task of incorporating UNCRPD’s provisions into the procedural matrix of their decision-making, concerned with ensuring the disabled citizens’ well-being.
The UNCRPD’s Article 23 also closely relates to the situation, described in the ‘Labor of love’ video. This is because this Article recognizes “The right of all persons with disabilities who are of marriageable age to marry and to found a family based on free and full consent” (para. 2). Given the fact that, even in Western countries, mentally impaired people have traditionally been discouraged from entering into marital relationships with each other, it will only be logical to assume that it was namely due to Australia having ratified UNCRPD that Tracy and Gerard were able to become husband and wife. And, as it was shown in the video, they did not experience even the slightest regret for what they have done. Quite on the contrary – as time goes on, Gerard and Tracy appear to enjoy their marital companionship more and more.
The issue of parental/professional commitment and the issue of subtle discrimination
There can be few doubts as to the fact that the critical topic ‘Family, parental, and social perception’ does stand out rather prominently in the ‘Labor of love’ video. This reason for this is quite apparent – the earlier mentioned video and the subsequent interviews with Gerard and Tracy’s parents do imply that, without having been surrounded by the atmosphere of love and understanding, both individuals would not be able to realize the full extent of their existential potentials. What is particularly important, in this respect, is that ‘Labor of love’ promotes the idea that it was specifically the Liz Sullivan (Tracy’s mother) and Les and Helen Zapelli’s (Gerard’s parents) willingness to apply an extra effort into treating their children with dignity, which increased Tracy and Gerard’s chances to integrate into society. This idea fully correlates with the findings of many sociological studies, which emphasize that the parents of disabled children are being in a key position to define a qualitative vector of these children’s development (Roberts & Lawton, 2001). The same applies to social workers, in charge of providing disabled people with care. The main prerequisite of social workers’ professional excellence is their emotional comfortableness with the idea that, when it comes down to helping disabled individuals to address the challenges of everyday living, they should always do it in a particularly dignified manner (Hendriks,1995).
Another discursively relevant issue, in respect to how the earlier mentioned critical topic relates to the case of Gerard and Tracy, is the fact that, as of today, some people in Western countries continue to refer to physically and mentally disabled individuals, as being altogether ‘useless’ (Calderbank, 2000). In fact, according to Tracy and Gerard’s parents, dealing with people’s perceptual ignorance was probably the foremost challenge they have been faced with, as the parents of disabled children. In other words, it is specifically the fact that there is still a certain lack of empathy towards disabled citizens, within the Australian society, which undermines these citizens’ ability to contribute to society’s overall well-being. It appears that the disabled individuals’ exposure to the subtle emanations of ‘normal’ people’s hostility towards what their unconscious psyche perceives as the physical embodiments of ‘otherness’, which increases the extent of these individuals’ social incapacitation. As Gillam (1999) noted, “If disabled people come to feel that the rest of society thinks that they should not exist, they may find it much harder to lobby and advocate on their behalf to retain and improve the services and opportunities that they currently have” (p. 166).
Even though during recent decades, an extensive effort has been applied in making Australians thoroughly comfortable with the ideals of tolerance and acceptance, many of them continue to disregard disabled people’s basic human rights (Ardill, 2009). The irony lay in the fact that there can hardly be found any intentional maliciousness to such their act, because people’s tendency to treat disabled individuals with suspicion is being of an atavistic/instinctual nature, “The ‘tribal drum’… It beats in all societies, warning members of the tribe against the dangers of ‘the others’, those who are not members of the tribe, even those who are different within a society” (Bruno, 1999, p. 855). Therefore, it will not be much of an exaggeration to suggest that the discursive significance of ‘Labor of love’ can also be discussed within the context of how this video helps viewers to overcome their instinctual prejudices towards the very concept of disability, in general, and disabled individuals, in particular. This is because, contrary to the atavistic assumption that disabled people represent nothing short of a ‘society’s burden’, the case of Tracy and Gerard, explored in the video, points out the fact that both severely incapacitated persons are being nevertheless fully capable of leading normal lifestyles. Therefore, it may well be suggested that this video should be especially recommended for viewing by people who experience a particularly hard time, while trying to suppress their animalistic/tribal instincts, as it will come in particularly handy, in this respect.
Fulfillment of the disabled people’s rights and the realities of a disabled living in Australia
As it was implied earlier, UNCRPD directly relates to the case of Tracy and Gerard, described in the ‘Labor of love, because this video shows how UNCRPD’s provisions can be implemented in practice. The same can be said about the chosen topic, which implies that the notion of disability is not being conceptually incompatible with the notions of family and parenting. This topic also establishes a dialectically predetermined link between the disabled people’s likelihood to enjoy a high-quality living and the subtleties of societal perception of the very notion of disability. In other words, for disabled people to be in a position to fulfill their rights, there must be social preconditions for able-bodied citizens to be willing to think of the notion of disability, as being synonymous with the notion of existential uniqueness, rather than the notion of incapacitation.
In their turn, these preconditions can only exist for as long as the concerned society continues to enjoy comparative prosperity. This is because it is only in technologically and culturally advanced societies, the economies of which generate plenty of ‘surplus product’, where taxpaying citizens can afford the luxury of hiring social workers (who take care of disabled citizens), in the first place (Angle, 1986). Therefore, even though there still much needs to be done, to increase the extent of disabled Australians’ societal accommodation, it would be inappropriate to deny the fact that, as compared to what is being the case with their disabled counterparts in the neighboring Second and Third world countries, Australian invalids fair so much better. The scenes in the ‘Labor of love’ video, which feature social workers playing with Tracy and Gerard, taking them for a walk, helping them in the kitchen, and feeding them, support the full validity of this suggestion. Even though Tracy and Gerard were unlucky to end up leading ‘assisted’ lifestyles, they nevertheless were lucky enough to be born in Australia, where there is no shortage of highly paid social workers.
Conclusion
I believe that the earlier deployed line of argumentation, in regards to the discussed subject matter, is being fully consistent with the initially proposed thesis. There are indeed several reasons to think that, as time goes on, the country’s disabled citizens will be progressively more likely to explore the full scope of their social rights. In this respect, the ratification of UNCRPD by Australia will help them enormously.
References:
Ardill, A. (2009). Sociobiology, racism and Australian colonization. Griffith Law Review, 18 (1), 82-113.
Angle, J. (1986). The surplus theory of social stratification and the size distribution of personal wealth. Social Forces, 65 (2), 293-326.
Bahdi, R. (2002). Globalization of judgment: Transjudicialism and the five faces of international law in domestic courts. The George Washington International Law Review, 34 (3), 555-603.
Bruno, R. (1999). ‘Beating’ the tribal drum: Rejecting disability stereotypes and preventing self-discrimination. Disability & Society, 14 (6), 855 – 857.
Calderbank, R. (2000). Abuse and disabled people: Vulnerability or social indifference? Disability & Society, 15 (3), 521-534.
Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. (2006). UN Enable. Web.
Gillam, L. (1999). Prenatal diagnosis and discrimination against the disabled. Journal of Medical Ethics, 25 (2), 163-171.
Hendriks, A. (1995). Disabled persons and their right to equal treatment: Allowing differentiation while ending discrimination. Health and Human Rights, 1(2),152-173.
Karr, V. (2011). A life of quality: Informing the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22 (2), 67-82.
Roberts, K. & Lawton, D. (2001). Acknowledging the extra care parents give their disabled children. Child: Care, Health & Development, 27 (4), 307-319.