Home  About us  Contact
 

Rights Commission (right + commission)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences22%

Kinds of Rights Commission

  • human right commission
    		•

    Selected Abstracts

    (ANTI)SOCIAL CAPITAL IN THE PRODUCTION OF AN (UN)CIVIL SOCIETY IN PAKISTAN,

    GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW, Issue 3 2005
    DAANISH MUSTAFA
    ABSTRACT. Pakistan is home to some of the most widely admired examples of civil-society-based service-delivery and advocacy groups. Pakistan has also spawned some much-maligned nongovernmental actors with violent agendas. This article uses the social capital / civil society conceptual lens to view the modes of (anti)social capital mobilization that contribute to the civil and uncivil spaces of Pakistani society. The case examples of Jamaat-e-Islami, an Islamic revivalist organization, and the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan are used to understand the geography of social and antisocial forces in Pakistan. It is argued that the processes that mobilize social capital-whether positive or perverse-are multiscalar and that, in the Pakistani context, no compelling cultural or religious reason exists for the ascendance of one type of social capital over the other. Positive social capital can be mobilized to contribute to a more civil social discourse in Pakistan, given the right policy choices. [source]

    Disability Rights Commission: From Civil Rights to Social Rights

    JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY, Issue 4 2008
    Agnes Fletcher
    This paper argues that, although originally conceived as part of the ,civil rights' agenda, the development of disability rights in Britain by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) is better seen as a movement towards the realization of social, economic, and cultural rights, and so as reaffirmation of the indissolubility of human rights in the round. As such, that process of development represents a concrete exercise in the implementation of social rights by a statutory equality body and a significant step towards the conception of disability rights as universal participation, not just individual or minority group entitlement. The paper considers the distinctive features of that regulatory activity. It asks what sort of equality the DRC set out to achieve for disabled people and where, as a result, its work positioned it on the regulatory spectrum. From the particular experience of the DRC, the paper looks forward to considerations of general relevance to other such bodies, including the new Equality and Human Rights Commission. [source]

    The Dilemma of Double Standards in U.S. Human Rights Policy

    PEACE & CHANGE, Issue 4 2003
    Scott Turner
    In May 2000 the United States was voted off of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. This reflected the frustration of much of the international community with the United States' increasingly obstructionist approach to international institutionalism. The United States' opposition to the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC) reflects its pursuit of double standards in human rights policy. Double standards are manifest in U.S. support for Israel and Turkey with their records of gross human rights violations. They likewise are discernable in the strategic motives behind the 1999 Kosovo intervention. The proposed ICC challenges the United States' use of human rights rhetoric to pursue unilateral objectives by forging a more neutral means of prosecuting international justice. If the United States is to recover its status as the world's human rights leader, it must renew its commitment to multilateral institutionalism and must avoid double standards that undermine the legitimacy of human rights discourse. [source]

    The experiences of disabled pupils and their families

    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION, Issue 4 2007
    Ann Lewis
    In this article, Ann Lewis, Professor of Education at the University of Birmingham, and Ian Davison, Jean Ellins, Louise Niblett, Sarah Parsons, Christopher Robertson and Jeremy Sharpe from the research team provide a summary of discussions and selected recommendations arising from four linked projects run between 2004 and 2006. The projects were funded by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) and looked into the experiences of disabled pupils and their families across England, Scotland and Wales. A central aim of the research was to identify the key concerns and priorities in relation to their experiences of education for children and young people with special educational needs (SEN) or disabilities and their families in the UK. The research encompassed a UK-wide parent survey (N=1776); in-depth case studies of individual children and young people (N=36); group case studies (of, for example, school councils) (N=3); and a series of project advisory groups involving disabled people. Underlying these aspects was an emphasis on the importance and validity of hearing directly from (potentially all) children and young people themselves. Thus the work meshes closely with initiatives worldwide concerning the recognition of children's,voice'in matters that concern them. The authors are not aware of any comparable evidence which focuses in-depth on a wide cross-section of pupils with disabilities or special needs and their families in the UK-wide educational context and which is located alongside concurrent authoritative data concerning the views of parents and carers. [source]

    Special educational needs and disability

    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION, Issue 4 2006
    Sue Keil
    Issues relating to the categorisation and labelling of pupils, and, the use of the terms ,special educational needs' and ,disability' in particular, have been the topic of debate in BJSE before. In this article, Sue Keil, a research officer at the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB), Olga Miller, of the Institute of Education, University of London, and Rory Cobb, a development officer at the RNIB, summarise some of the key findings from a review carried out on behalf of the Disability Rights Commission (DRC). The authors highlight confusion over the use of terms that represent differing ideological perspectives. Despite the social focus that characterises much of the discourse about disability, disability is frequently regarded as an aspect of special educational needs, an area in which a medical model is often dominant. These confusions benefit neither children with disabilities nor those with less clearly-defined difficulties. Sue Keil, Olga Miller and Rory Cobb note with interest recent developments in Scotland where a new framework based on the concept of ,additional support needs' separates disability from educational need and is intended to represent a more inclusive approach to children's learning. [source]

    Human rights commissions and public policy: The role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in advancing sexual orientation equality rights in Canada

    CANADIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION/ADMINISTRATION PUBLIQUE DU CANADA, Issue 2 2008
    Annette Nierobisz
    The case study is informed by commission annual reports, speeches by past chief commissioners, presentations by the commission to parliamentary committees, and an examination of 442 sexual orientation complaints closed by the commission by 2005. The study shows that, from its inception, the commission had a simple and consistent message: sexual orientation should not be the basis for denying individuals employment, services or benefits. Using a variety of strategies, the CHRC facilitated the incorporation of this message into the Canadian Human Rights Act by promoting the designation of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Subsequently, the commission became actively involved in securing equal access to employment-related benefits in the federal sphere for same-sex couples and also added its voice in support of legal recognition of same-sex marriage. The authors conclude by discussing how the unique position of human rights commissions gives them the potential to play an important role in public policy development, even when there may be a lack of political will or public support. Sommaire: Le présent article examine l'aptitude des commissions des droits de la personne à encourager les changements dans la politique publique en mettant l'accent sur la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne (CCDP) et son rôle dans la promotion des droits à l'égalité en matière d'orientation sexuelle au Canada. L' étude de cas tire ses informations des rapports annuels de la commission, des allocutions prononcées par d'anciens présidents de la commission, des présentations faites par la commission aux comités parlementaires, et d'un examen de 442 plaintes relatives à l'orientation sexuelle traitées par la commission jusqu'en 2005. L' étude indique que, depuis sa création, la commission avait un message simple et unanime : l'orientation sexuelle ne devrait pas être un motif invoqué pour refuser de l'emploi, des services ou des avantages sociaux à des particuliers. Grâce à diverses stratégies, la CCDP a facilité l'intégration de ce message à la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne en faisant en sorte que l'orientation sexuelle soit désignée comme un motif de discrimination interdit. Par la suite, la commission a été active sur la scène fédérale pour assurer que les conjoints de même sexe bénéficient de l' égalité d'accès aux avantages liés à l'emploi, et elle a également soutenu la reconnaissance légale du mariage des conjoints de même sexe. En conclusion, les auteurs discutent la position unique des commissions des droits de la personne qui leur offre le potentiel de jouer un rôle important dans l' élaboration des politiques gouvernementales, même avec un manque de volonté politique ou de soutien public. [source]