The Rights of People Living with Disabilities in the 21st Century

Pol­gá­ri Szem­le, 14. évf., 1–3. sz., 2018, 129–137., DOI: 10.24307/psz.2018.0811

Il­di­kó Laki, PhD, As­so­ci­a­te Pro­fes­sor, King Sig­is­mund Uni­ver­sity (b.​laki. ildiko@​gmail.​com).

Sum­ma­ry

In this study a tho­ro­ugh re­view is given of the cur­rent so­ci­al sta­tus and legal en­vi­ron­ment of people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es in the 21st cent­ury. In Euro­pe there exists a great di­ver­sity of in­terp­re­ta­tions and ac­tu­al prac­ti­ces in the rights of people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es. Legal re­gu­la­tions on the con­di­tions of people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es add furt­her cont­ent to the de­fi­ni­ti­on of the term “di­sa­bi­lity”. In the legal treat­ment of the topic there is an in­he­rent cont­ra­dic­ti­on: while, as a re­sult of so­ci­al de­ve­lop­ments, the in­di­vi­du­al’s uni­que­ness and us­e­ful­ness for the com­mu­nity are me­a­sured and eva­lu­a­ted, his/her right and ac­cess to a comp­le­te and sa­tis­fac­to­ry life is not gu­a­ran­te­ed; ins­tead, so­ci­ety aims to ma­nage and inf­lu­en­ce those seg­ments of life which im­pact so­ci­ety as a whole. The en­ti­re topic of di­sa­bi­li­ti­es is overs­ha­do­wed by a di­cho­tomy of the in­di­vi­du­al as a self-ser­ving en­tity and as a us­e­ful cont­ri­bu­tor to so­ci­ety. The study first dis­cus­ses the in­ter­na­ti­o­nal pro­to­cols and con­vent­ions that had a di­rect im­pact on the lives of people with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es in the 20th cent­ury; and then ela­bo­ra­tes on the good prac­ti­ces that cons­ti­tu­te pre­ce­dents. The con­di­tions pre­va­i­ling in di­sa­bi­lity af­fa­irs in Hun­gary are descri­bed in the­o­re­ti­cal and prac­ti­cal pers­pec­ti­ves, and the ex­tent to which human rights are gu­a­ran­te­ed for and achi­eved by this seg­ment of so­ci­ety is de­monst­ra­ted.

Key­words: human rights of people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es, legal re­gu­la­tions, so­ci­ety


“Di­sa­bi­li­ti­es can be de­cip­he­red only
wit­hin a given his­to­ri­cal con­text.
In times pre­ce­ding our mo­dern era so­ci­eti­es re­le­ga­ted people li­ving with some forms of di­sa­bi­li­ti­es to total exc­lu­si­on, me­anw­hi­le the so-called ‘vil­lage idi­ots’ well-known from stori­es and fairy tales, who ac­cord­ing to con­tem­por­ary stan­dards would be trea­ted as less than comp­le­te mem­bers of any so­ci­ety, were ac­cep­ted and va­lu­ed mem­bers of their com­mu­ni­ti­es.”
(Masch­ke, 2010:67)

TER­MI­NO­LOGY – A PER­SON LI­VING WITH DI­SA­BI­LI­TI­ES?
DI­SA­BI­LITY AS A CON­CEPT?

Act XXVI of 1998 on the Rights and Sa­fe­gu­ard­ing of Equal Op­por­tuni­ti­es of Dis­ab­led Per­sons, as amen­ded by Act LXII of 2013, de­fi­nes a per­son li­ving with a di­sa­bi­lity as an in­di­vi­du­al who lives, in the long-term or per­ma­nently, with some form of sen­sory, com­mu­ni­ca­tive, phy­si­cal, men­tal, and psy­cho­so­ci­al dys­func­ti­on, or any num­ber of them cu­mu­la­ti­vely, which ad­ver­sely af­fect(s) their abi­lity to ef­fec­ti­vely en­gage in so­ci­al in­ter­ac­tions on an equal fo­o­ting with ot­hers due to en­vi­ron­men­tal, so­ci­al and other fac­tors and hin­d­ran­ces1 (Ma­gyar Köz­löny, 2013).

With focus on me­as­ura­bi­lity, Sec­ti­on 11 of the 2011 Cen­sus in Hun­gary de­fi­nes di­sa­bi­lity as an in­di­vi­du­al’s pers­is­tent con­di­ti­on or qu­a­lity of the total ab­sen­ce or par­ti­al pos­ses­si­on of phy­si­cal, men­tal, sen­sory, motor, and com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on func­tions or ca­pa­ci­ti­es, which hin­ders their abi­lity to par­ti­ci­pa­te in so­ci­al in­ter­ac­ti­on and to lead a life cons­idered to be stan­dard (KSH, 2014).

In her study en­tit­led Be­ve­ze­tő ál­ta­lá­nos gyógy­pe­da­gó­gi­ai is­me­re­tek [Int­ro­duc­ti­on to Spe­ci­al Needs Edu­ca­ti­on] Gor­dos­né pro­vi­des a de­tai­led analy­sis of the term by sur­veying va­ri­o­us fields. The de­fi­ni­ti­on of di­sa­bi­lity en­ta­ils, on the one hand, va­ri­o­us as­pects and the in­ter­re­la­ti­onsh­ips bet­ween them. A num­ber of psy­cho­log­i­cal and so­ci­al cha­rac­te­r­is­tics and the abi­lity to make sound de­ci­sions are ne­ces­sa­rily af­fec­ted by phy­si­cal and ner­vo­us in­ju­ri­es, i.e. they are di­rect con­se­qu­en­ces of im­pa­ir­ment. The va­ri­o­us att­ri­bu­tes of di­sa­bi­li­ti­es fre­qu­ently over­lap. For examp­le, cert­ain types of vi­si­on im­pa­ir­ment re­sult in total blind­ness, thus agg­ra­vat­ing a phy­si­cal di­sa­bi­lity by psy­cho­log­i­cal da­mage and the ina­bi­lity to carry out or­di­nary daily ac­ti­vi­ti­es. Phy­si­cal di­sa­bi­li­ti­es are ter­med as pri­ma­ry, while psy­cho­log­i­cal ones as se­con­dary, and ab­sen­ce of ca­pa­ci­ti­es to lead a nor­mal daily life as the ter­ti­ary form (Gor­dos­né, 2004).

Árpád Spal­ler and Ka­ta­lin Spal­ler (2006) give a de­tai­led analy­sis of the terms “di­sa­bi­lity” and “people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es”, and descri­be the ins­ti­tu­ti­o­nal fra­me­work sup­port­ing the dis­ab­led. They tack­le di­sa­bi­li­ti­es from the pers­pec­tive of spe­ci­al needs edu­ca­ti­on. The ter­mi­no­logy ori­gi­na­tes from me­di­cal sci­en­ce and in­di­ca­tes ch­ro­nic bio­log­i­cal im­pa­ir­ments, al­te­ra­tions in basic body func­tions, and any at­ten­dant changes in the in­di­vi­du­al’s per­so­na­lity. Di­sa­bi­lity is a ne­ga­tive chan­ge from the ge­ne­rally ac­cep­ted norm, an or­ga­nic dys­func­ti­on, which may be of the cent­ral ner­vo­us sys­tem, one of the sen­sory or­gans, spe­ech im­pe­di­ment or motor skills dis­or­der that pers­ists th­ro­ug­ho­ut the en­ti­re li­fespan of the af­fec­ted per­son and is ir­re­ver­sib­le. The term “di­sa­bi­lity” may be one-si­ded and de­ro­ga­to­ry, since it la­bels an in­di­vi­du­al by fo­cus­ing on exist­ing im­pa­ir­ments (Spal­ler–Spal­ler, 2006).

The WHO’s in­terp­re­ta­ti­on pro­vi­des a more comp­lex ter­mi­no­logy and cont­ent. Ad­ding a comp­let­ely new ele­ment to the aca­de­mic fra­me­work of the topic, in 1980, the WHO set up a clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on re­fer­red to as the In­ter­na­ti­o­nal Clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on of Im­pa­ir­ments, Di­sa­bi­li­ti­es and Han­di­ca­ps (ICIDH). This new mul­ti­di­men­si­o­nal app­ro­ach was a sig­ni­fi­cant land­mark in the re­ne­wal of spe­ci­al needs edu­ca­ti­on in Hun­gary (Gor­dos­né, 2004), and made a major cont­ri­bu­ti­on to so­ci­o­logy, po­li­ti­cal sci­en­ce and me­di­ci­ne. Ac­cord­ing to this clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on, di­sa­bi­lity is pro­du­ced by a num­ber of in­ter­re­la­ted pro­ces­ses fol­lo­wing some form of ill­ness or dis­or­der, con­se­qu­ently lead­ing to some form of im­pa­ir­ment that could be furt­her agg­ra­va­ted to re­sult in an ac­tu­al di­sa­bi­lity, which can be co­up­led with the de­ve­lop­ment of a han­di­cap. In 2001, the World He­alth As­semb­ly adop­ted the la­test re­vi­sed vers­ion of the WHO’s In­ter­na­ti­o­nal Clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on of Func­tion­ing, Di­sa­bi­lity and He­alth (ICF). The ICF does not as­sess in­di­vi­du­als or their pre­di­ca­ments, i.e. their he­alth is­sues or the ad­ver­se out­co­mes of ac­ci­dents; rat­her it uti­li­zes a so-called re­ver­se clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on sys­tem by sur­veying the ef­fects and se­ve­rity of ill­nes­ses re­la­tive to the func­ti­o­nal po­ten­ci­es of the af­fec­ted per­son (Gor­dos­né, 2004).

Int­ro­duc­ti­on to the rights of people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es

People li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es have the same rights as any other people, even tho­ugh this only be­came evi­dent and ap­pa­rent in the past 20-25 years. They have va­ri­o­us ob-sta­c­les in their every­day life, and they may sig­ni­fi­cantly af­fect their rights, since people with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es are una­b­le to rep­re­sent their in­te­rests and make use of sup­port from so­ci­ety in many areas.

The most im­por­tant 21st cent­ury ac­comp­lish­ment is the eff­orts made at achi­eving equal op­por­tuni­ti­es for all. This is furt­her re­in­for­ced by the so­li­da­rity and in­te­gra­ti­on app­ro­ach of mem­bers of so­ci­ety. So­ci­al va­lues are di­vi­ded into two mo­dels: stan­dards est­ab­lis­hed by the so­ci­ety, and sta­tu­tes, laws and re­gu­la­tions, which often igno­re the ge­nui­ne needs of so­ci­ety. Howe­ver, that is exactly why the cause of people with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es could gain the op­por­tunity to have a spe­ci­al role in the so­ci­al con­sen­sus and to raise pub­lic aware­ness of the fact that people be­long­ing to di­sad­van­tag­ed gro­ups must be given pub­lic sup­port as op­po­s­ed to those who do not need such as­sis­tance. Thus, leg­i­sla­ti­on sho­uld pri­ma­rily aim for the in­teg­rity of so­ci­ety, and adopt laws and sub­mit draft acts in this spi­rit.

Every leg­i­sla­ti­on sho­uld over­come the cur­rent legal treat­ment of the con­di­ti­on of people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es the pri­ma­ry prob­lem needs. In wes­tern Euro­pe­an ci­vi­li­za­ti­on (Hun­ting­ton, 1998), in the in­di­vi­du­a­lis­tic va­lue-sys­tem and in the con­cept of equ­a­lity, which rep­la­ced the for­mer sys­tem of fe­u­dal pri­vi­le­ges, and in the ideal of comp­le­te equ­a­lity, as sta­ted in the Dec­la­ra­ti­on of In­de­pen­den­ce and in the Dec­la­ra­ti­on of the Rights of Man and of the Ci­ti­zen, in­di­vi­du­als are cons­idered strictly on qu­a­li­ta­tive terms, the human being is vie­wed in an es­sen­ti­a­list model. On the other hand, the pro­fit-ori­en­ted logic of ca­pi­tal­ism fa­vo­urs a dif­fe­rent cri­ter­ion: the in­di­vi­du­al sho­uld serve as a pro­duc­tive mem­ber of so­ci­ety, ac­ti­vely cont­ri­bu­te to, or at least not hin­der the smo­oth func­tion­ing of, the pro­fit-dri­ven so­ci­al, eco­no­mic and po­li­ti­cal sys­tem; this is the uti­li­ta­ri­an or func­ti­o­na­list view of man. The area of di­sa­bi­li­ti­es may be one of the major flash­points bet­ween ideo­log­i­cally mo­ti­vat­ed and pro­fit-ori­en­ted phi­lo­sop­hi­es; the dis­ab­led are en­tit­led to the same rights as the non-dis­ab­led mem­bers of so­ci­ety, howe­ver, their in­te­gra­ti­on into the ma­inst­ream so­ci­ety due to their pre­sum­ed “us­eless­ness” re­qu­i­res the out­lay of substan­ti­al so­ci­al and ma­te­ri­al re­sour­ces. The prin­cip­le of equ­a­lity de­mands that any so­ci­ety sho­uld at­tempt at re­medy­ing the out­stand­ing di­sad­van­ta­ges, but this does not ne­ces­sa­rily mean that it at­tempts to trans­form dis­ab­led people into so­ci­ally va­lu­ab­le mem­bers for its own be­ne­fit. As we do not have any semb­lance of an eter­nal human es­sen­ce app­lic­ab­le to all mem­bers of a so­ci­ety, the op­por­tunity of self-re­a­li­za­ti­on, th­ro­ugh per­so­nal as­p­ira­tions may go far beyond what is cons­idered as so­ci­ally con­du­cive in a par­ti­cu­lar so­ci­ety. Com­pen­sa­ti­on for the di­sad­van­ta­ges suf­fe­red must come with the provi­si­on of op­por­tuni­ti­es to live a full life, which ne­ces­sa­rily re­qu­i­res in­te­gra­ti­on, in other words, in any age in any given so­ci­ety “us­e­ful” func­tions must be found for the dis­ab­led, tho­ugh by doing so, the es­sen­ti­a­list model may be comp­ro­mi­sed (Laki–Tóth, 2013).

Cha­rac­te­r­is­tics of human rights

“Every per­son is en­tit­led to cert­ain fun­da­men­tal rights, simply by the fact of being human. These are called ‘human rights’ rat­her than a pri­vi­le­ge (which can be taken away at som­eo­ne’s whim). They are ‘rights’ be­ca­u­se they are things you are al­lo­wed to be, to do or to have. These rights are there for your pro­tec­ti­on aga­inst people who might want to harm or hurt you. They are also there to help us get along with each other and live in peace”.2

Human rights are based on human needs. Every per­son has an equal right not only to life, but also to a dig­ni­fi­ed life. Human rights have cert­ain es­sen­ti­al cha­rac­te­r­is­tics which dist­in­gu­ish them from other basic rights.

Cha­rac­te­r­is­tics of human rights

Uni­vers­al: Human rights apply to every human being on this pla­net, ir­respec­tive of their race, gen­der, so­ci­al group, di­sa­bi­lity con­di­ti­on or any other dist­in­gu­ish­ing fac­tor.

In­he­rent: Every human being is na­tu­rally en­tit­led to human rights, wit­ho­ut any dis­tinc­ti­on.

Inali­en­ab­le: Human rights can­not be re­pe­a­led or de­ni­ed from any in­di­vi­du­al human being.3

Human rights are in­di­vi­sib­le (i.e. can­not be se­lec­ti­vely app­li­ed), uni­vers­al (en-com­pass all rights man is en­do­wed with) and are comp­le­men­tary (mu­tu­ally af­fect one anot­her).

Uni­vers­al Dec­la­ra­ti­on of Human Rights

The Uni­vers­al Dec­la­ra­ti­on of Human Rights was adop­ted by the Uni­ted Na­tions in 1948. Since its adopt­ion, a num­ber of other co­ven­ants have been draf­ted that it ser­ves the basis of. In its 30 ar­tic­les, it lists the in­he­rent human rights (basic cul­t­u­ral, eco­no­mic, po­li­ti­cal and so­ci­al rights) that apply to all human be­ings ir­respec­tive of race, co­lo­ur, sex, re­li­gi­on or po­li­ti­cal opin­ion. Alt­ho­ugh not leg­ally bind­ing, and thus can­not be en­for­ced, it is still a po­wer­ful inst­ru­ment in apply­ing dip­lo­ma­tic and moral pres­su­re on govern­ments and it is fre­qu­ently cited.

Uni­ted Na­tions Con­vent­ion on the Rights of Per­sons with Di­sa­bi­li­ti­es

The issue of di­sa­bi­li­ti­es must be trea­ted in a wider con­text; proper un­der­stand­ing re­qu­i­res fa­mi­liari­za­ti­on with the af­fec­ted in­di­vi­du­al’s phy­si­cal, so­ci­al and cul­t­u­ral en­vi­ron­ment. Howe­ver, these mar­kers by them­sel­ves may not be suf­fi­ci­ent, since if a given count­ry or re­gi­on does not pos­sess the proper legal and eco­no­mic backg­round to offer sup­port and en­co­u­rag­ement, then li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es is und­o­ub­tedly a di­sad­van­tage. The Hun­ga­ri­ans laws, re­gu­la­tions and or­di­nan­ces cle­arly prove that in this count­ry the right fra­me­work is given for the dis­ab­led seg­ment of so­ci­ety to ac­ti­vely uti­li­ze the op­por­tuni­ti­es pro­vi­ded by the so­ci­al, po­li­ti­cal and eco­no­mic fa­cets of the in­vol­ved ac­tors.

“Of the per­ti­nent in­ter­na­ti­o­nal re­gu­la­tions, pri­ma­rily the UN Con­vent­ion on the Rights of Per­sons with Di­sa­bi­li­ti­es (CRPD) must be ment­ion­ed, which the mem­ber sta­tes of the Euro­pe­an Com­mu­nity sign­ed in 2007. Hun­gary ra­ti­fi­ed the above Con­vent­ion se­cond in the world with the adopt­ion of Act XCII of 2007 on the Con­vent­ion on the Rights of Per­sons with Di­sa­bi­li­ti­es and the Opt­io­nal Pro­to­col to the Con­vent­ion. This legal do­cu­ment co­he­rently and comp­re­hen­si­vely lists the basic rights of people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es, the­reby gu­a­ran­te­e­ing equal op­por­tuni­ti­es to them” (Szále, 2010:108). The Euro­pe­an Union be­came a sig­na­to­ry to the CRPD in De­cem­ber 2010. “By this act the EU re­cog­ni­zed that people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es face chal­len­ges in the at­ta­in­ment of their rights and emp­has­i­zed that the Euro­pe­an Union and its mem­bers sta­tes must con­ti­nu­o­usly re­ma­in vi­gi­lant to en­for­ce the re­le­vant EU re­gu­la­tions” (Bén­dek, 2013).

Bes­ides the ela­bo­ra­ti­on of the leg­i­sla­tive acts, which had al­re­ady been pas­sed when scru­ti­nizing the de­ci­si­on-mak­ing pro­cess re­la­ted to di­sa­bi­lity af­fa­irs, it is in­dis­pens­ab­le to in­vol­ve, or pro­vi­de op­por­tuni­ti­es for the in­vol­ve­ment of, the af­fec­ted gro­ups so that they be­co­me part­ners ins­tead of being mere ob­ser­vers in the legal pro­cess that is of prime re­le­vance in their lives.

In 2006, the UN Ge­ne­ral As­semb­ly adop­ted the Con­vent­ion on the Rights of Per­sons with Di­sa­bi­li­ti­es, the first human rights inst­ru­ment with an exp­li­cit focus on di­sa­bi­li­ti­es.

“People li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es are not the re­ci­pi­ents of cha­rity but hold­ers of rights; these are to be gu­a­ran­te­ed not pri­ma­rily th­ro­ugh pub­lic wel­fa­re and sup­port sche­mes but with the re­a­li­za­ti­on of self-de­ter­mi­na­ti­on, li­ving and lead­ing in­de­pen­dent lives as well as equal ac­cess to ser­vi­ces.”4

A brief sum­ma­ry of the rights of dis­ab­led per­sons

The Con­vent­ion on the Rights of Per­sons with Di­sa­bi­li­ti­es (CRPD) spe­ci­fi­es the dut­i­es of govern­ments to pro­tect and promo­te the rights of people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es. This study fol­lows prin­cip­les ensh­ri­ned in the Con­vent­ion, as no mat­ter where gro­ups of people with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es live, they have the same rights everyw­he­re.

The clear aim of the Con­vent­ion is to en­ab­le people with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es to live their life in a way si­mil­ar to that of the mem­bers of the ma­jo­rity so­ci­ety. The eli­mi­na­ti­on of discri­mi­na­ti­on is es­sen­ti­al in en­suring that, which means that legal re­gu­la­tions crea­ted by govern­ments make equal op­por­tuni­ti­es achi­ev­ab­le and eli­mi­na­te discri­mi­na­ti­on aga­inst per­sons li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es. This crea­tes a sort of ob­li­ga­ti­on for so­ci­ety, eco­nomy, govern­men­tal and non-govern­men­tal or­ga­ni­sa­tions, i.e. in the 21st cent­ury, dis­tinc­ti­on is not made bet­ween people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es and the other mem­bers of so­ci­ety.

This is also un­der­li­ned in a provi­si­on of the Con­vent­ion, which en­sures equ­a­lity be­fo­re the law by re­cogn­is­ing that “per­sons with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es sho­uld enjoy the same legal rights as everyone else”.5

People li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es are en­ab­led to de­ter­mi­ne their lives. Howe­ver, this raises nu­me­rous quest­ions and crea­tes prob­lems, as the per­sons con­cer­ned are not in all cases able to fully de­ter­mi­ne their own lives and make res­pon­sib­le de­ci­sions in re­la­ti­on with their acts.

Legal is­sues also raise quest­ions re­lat­ing to in­de­pen­dent life. The Con­vent­ion also aims to imp­le­ment the prin­cip­le and ac­ti­on, which preclu­des people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es from being for­ced to live in a par­ti­cu­lar ar­range­ment. The people con­cer­ned sho­uld have the pos­si­bi­lity to have a home of their own, a job, and ac­cess to in­for-ma­ti­on, tran­sport, edu­ca­ti­on, cul­tu­re and dif­fe­rent ser­vi­ces in order to have equal op­por­tuni­ti­es. Alt­ho­ugh these rights are fun­da­men­tal, we can still see very se­ri­o­us de­fi­ci­en­ci­es in these areas even in the 21st cent­ury.

As people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es rely on care, they are de­pen­dent and vul­ne­rab­le. Ne­vert­he­less, they have the right to live under con­di­tions that en­sure human dig­nity, and to be pro­tec­ted from acts of exp­lo­i­ta­ti­on, vi­o­len­ce, tor­tu­re and deg­rad­ing treat­ment. Cur­rently, people at a di­sad­van­tage are fre­qu­ent vic­tims of dif­fe­rent acts of so­ci­ety, it the­re­fo­re ap­pe­ars that re­sol­ving this si­tu­a­ti­on is far from neg­li­gib­le from a po­li­cy pers­pec­tive.

The right to po­li­ti­cal par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on, i.e. en­suring par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in po­li­ti­cal life, is one of the most im­por­tant rights for per­sons at a di­sad­van­tage. “Sta­tes have the ob­li­ga­ti­on to respect, pro­tect, and ful­fil the rights of people with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es to par­ti­ci­pa­te in po­li­ti­cal and pub­lic life and de­ci­si­on-mak­ing more ge­ne­rally where their in­te­rests are af­fec­ted” (SI­NOSZ, 2007).

Di­sa­bi­lity is­sues in hun­gary

“When analy­sing the re­la­ti­onship bet­ween di­sa­bi­lity and law, one of the fun­da­men­tal quest­ions is what the class of per­sons with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es can be re­gar­ded as from the point of view of so­ci­ety: a mi­no­rity that can be descri­bed with pre­ci­se cha­rac­te­r­is­tics or a group of people that can only be dist­in­gu­is­hed by their spe­ci­al needs from the large ma­jo­rity” (Kál­mán–Könc­zei, 2002).

Hun­ga­ri­an leg­i­sla­ti­on and so­ci­al sci­en­ce re­se­arch papers have star­ted to add­ress the si­tu­a­ti­on and the in­vol­ve­ment of people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es in so­ci­ety in the 1990s. Equal op­por­tuni­ti­es, equal treat­ment, so­ci­al inc­lu­si­on, seg­re­ga­ti­on and the com­mu­nity mind­set gra­du­ally drew at­tent­ion to the tasks, which were pre­vi­o­usly mar­gi­n­ally add­res­sed by leg­i­sla­tors, ex­perts and the so­ci­ety itself.

Act XXVI of 1998 on the Rights and En­suring the Equal Op­por­tuni­ti­es of People with Di­sa­bi­li­ti­es (Act on the Rights of Per­sons with Di­sa­bi­li­ti­es) was adop­ted as the first act on the rights of per­sons with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es in Hun­gary. “The pri­ma­ry ob­jec­tive of the Act is to gu­a­ran­tee the rights of per­sons with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es, and thus to promo­te their equal op­por­tuni­ti­es, in­de­pen­dent li­ving and ac­tive in­vol­ve­ment in so­ci­al life. [...] Mo­re­o­ver, the Act on the Rights of Per­sons with Di­sa­bi­li­ti­es pro­vi­des for spe­ci­fic rights of people with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es, such as – to give but a few examp­les – the rights to re­ha­bi­li­ta­ti­on, to aid, to as­sis­tance ser­vi­ces, to early de­ve­lop­ment and to in­te­gra­ted or pro­tec­ted ac­cess to the la­bour mar­ket.”6

Anot­her re­le­vant act is Act CXXV of 2003 on Equal Treat­ment and Promo­ti­on of Equal Op­por­tuni­ti­es. The prin­cip­le of equal treat­ment pro­hi­bits discri­mi­na­ti­on aga­inst any so­ci­al group, whet­her on grounds of mem­ber­ship in a na­ti­o­nal or eth­nic mi­no­rity, di­sa­bi­lity, state of he­alth, fa­mily sta­tus, mo­ther­ho­od (preg­nancy) or father­ho­od, se­xu­al ori­en­ta­ti­on, se­xu­al iden­tity and age. This act was the first mi­les­to­ne in the in­te­gra­ti­on of so­ci­al gro­ups, the eli­mi­na­ti­on of discri­mi­na­ti­on and ra­ising legal aware­ness in Hun­gary.

People li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es have ob­li­ga­tions as well as rights, and both are es­sen­ti­al in the he­al­thy func­tion­ing of so­ci­ety.

Sum­ma­ry

The chan­ge of per­cept­ion in re­cent de­ca­des is based on the so-called nor­ma­li­za­ti­on prin­cip­le, which can be cons­idered as an in­di­vi­du­al-le­vel pro­fes­si­o­nal pa­ra­digm that aims to en­sure nor­mal li­ving con­di­tions for people with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es and to overs­ha­dow the ins­ti­tu­ti­o­nal sys­tem. In order to put the prin­cip­le in prac­ti­ce, we need to crea­te a so­ci­al en­vi­ron­ment which en­ab­les the per­sons con­cer­ned to have an op­ti­mum in­di­vi­du­al life path that imp­ro­ves their de­ve­lop­ment and the qu­a­lity of life, and leads to an open so­ci­ety.

In the 21st cent­ury, di­sa­bi­lity still poses se­ri­o­us prob­lems for the per­sons con­cer­ned, among ot­hers, li­mi­ted par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on and the ab­sen­ce of op­por­tuni­ti­es for in­te­gra­ti­on in the so­ci­ety. Sen­sit­ive areas inc­lu­de is­sues re­la­ted to the pri­vate sec­tor, par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in edu­ca­ti­on and in the la­bour mar­ket, the sys­tem of so­ci­al sup­port to people with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es and the sett­ing up of sa­fety nets. De­pend­ing on the de­fi­ni­ti­on of di­sa­bi­lity, a very high ratio of Euro­pe’s po­pu­la­ti­on (bet­ween 10 and 15 per cent) are clas­sed or dec­la­re them­sel­ves as dis­ab­led. This as­signs furt­her ine­vi­tab­le tasks to govern­ments in the field of both di­sa­bi­lity po­li­cy and the so­ci­al se­cu­rity and pen­si­on sche­me. In the agg­re­ga­te, this means that the imp­ro­ve­ment of li­ving, hous­ing and wor­king con­di­tions for people with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es will be cri­ti­cal in the next few years. This re­qu­i­res in­te­gra­ti­on and so­li­da­rity, and the abo­lit­ion of discri­mi­na­ti­on and exc­lu­si­on. Howe­ver, for this to hap­pen, the per­sons con­cer­ned, the mem­bers of the ma­jo­rity so­ci­ety and the po­li­ti­cal, eco­no­mic and govern­ment sta­ke­hold­ers must act in con­cert.7

Notes

Re­fe­ren­ces

Bén­dek, Ju­li­an­na (2014): Or­szág­je­len­tés Ma­gyar­or­szág­ról a fo­gya­té­kos­ság­gal élő gyer­me­kek­kel fog­lal­ko­zó tag­ál­la­mi szak­po­li­ti­kák­ról szóló ta­nul­mány­hoz [Count­ry re­port on Hun­gary for a re­se­arch paper on com­mu­nity po­li­ci­es in re­la­ti­on to child­ren li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es]. Eu­ró­pai Par­la­ment, http://​www.​europarl.​europa.​eu/​Reg-Data/​etudes/​etudes/​join/​2013/​474424/​IPOL-LIBE_​ET(2013)474424_­HU.pdf
Egész­ség­ügyi Vi­lág­szer­ve­zet (2004): A funk­ció­ké­pes­ség, fo­gya­té­kos­ság és egész­ség nem­zet­kö­zi osz­tály­zá­sa [In­ter­na­ti­o­nal clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on of func­tion­ing, di­sa­bi­lity and he­alth]. EszCsM-OEP–Me­di­ci­na, Bu­da­pest.
Gor­dos­né Szabó, Anna (2004): Be­ve­ze­tő ál­ta­lá­nos gyógy­pe­da­gó­gi­ai is­me­re­tek [Int­ro­duc­ti­on to spe­ci­al needs edu­ca­ti­on]. Nem­ze­ti Tan­könyv­ki­adó, Bu­da­pest.
Hun­ting­ton, Sa­mu­el P. (1998): A ci­vi­li­zá­ci­ók küz­del­me és az új vi­lág­rend ki­ala­ku­lá­sa [The Clash of Ci­vi­li­za­tions and the Re­mak­ing of the World Order]. Gon­do­lat Kiadó, Bu­da­pest.
Kál­mán, Zsó­fia – Könc­zei, György (2002): A Ta­iget­osz­tól az esély­egyen­lő­sé­gig [From Ta­iget to equal op­por­tuni­ti­es]. Osi­ris Kiadó, Bu­da­pest, http://​www.​tankonyvtar.​hu/​hu/​tartalom/​tamop425/​2011_​0001_​520_​a_​taigeto-sztol/​adatok.​html
KSH (2014): Nép­szám­lá­lás 2011. 11. Fo­gya­té­kos­ság­gal élők [Cen­sus 2011, Vo­lu­me 11 on people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es]. Köz­pon­ti Sta­tisz­ti­kai Hi­va­tal, Bu­da­pest, http://​www.​ksh.​hu/​docs/​hun/​xftp/​idoszaki/​nepsz2011/​ nepsz_11_2011.pdf
KSH (2015): Nép­szám­lá­lás 2011. 17. A fo­gya­té­kos­ság­gal élők hely­ze­te és szo­ci­á­lis el­lá­tá­sa [Cen­sus 2011, Vo­lu­me 17, The con­di­ti­on of and so­ci­al care for people li­ving with di­sa­bi­li­ti­es]. Köz­pon­ti Sta­tisz­ti­kai Hi­va­tal, Bu­da­pest, http://​www.​ksh.​hu/​docs/​hun/​xftp/​idoszaki/​nepsz2011/​nepsz_​17_​2011.​pdf
Laki, Il­di­kó – Tóth, Lász­ló (2013): Élet­ke­re­tek meg­ha­tá­ro­zá­sa a jog­sza­bá­lyok által [De­fi­ning li­ving si­tu­a­tions in light of legal re­gu­la­ti­on]. In: Laki, Il­di­kó (ed.): A nem­zet­kö­zi és hazai fo­gya­té­kos­po­li­ti­ka a 21. szá­zad­ban [Di­sa­bi­lity po­li­ci­es in Hun­gary and ab­road in the 21st cent­ury]. MTA TK Szo­cio­ló­gi­ai In­té­zet – L’Har­mat­tan, Bu­da­pest, 128–161.
Masch­ke, Mi­cha­el (2010): Fo­gya­té­kos­ság­po­li­ti­ka az Eu­ró­pai Uni­ó­ban [Di­sa­bi­lity po­li­cy in the Euro­pe­an Union]. ELTE Bár­czi Gusz­táv Gyógy­pe­da­gó­gi­ai Kar, Bu­da­pest.
Spal­ler, Árpád – Spal­ler, Ka­ta­lin (2006): Gyógy­pe­da­gó­gi­ai is­me­re­tek tára [Com­pen­di­um of spe­ci­al needs edu­ca­ti­on]. Timp Kiadó, Bu­da­pest.
Szále Lász­ló (szerk.) (2010): A be­fo­ga­dó tár­sa­da­lo­mért. Esély­egyen­lő­sé­gi po­li­ti­ka Ma­gyar­or­szá­gon 2002–2010 [For an open so­ci­ety. Po­li­ci­es on equal op­por­tuni­ti­es 2002-2010]. Szo­ci­á­lis és Mun­ka­ügyi Mi­nisz­té­ri­um, Bu­da­pest.
SI­NOSZ (2007): Em­be­ri jogok. IGEN! [Human rights. YES!] (2007): SI­NOSZ, Bu­da­pest, https://​sinosz.​hu/​wp/​wp-content/​uploads/​2015/​05/​EmberiJogok_​IGEN_​hungarian.​pdf