Policy Roundtable Milano
Post on 07-Nov-2014
1030 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
101
Scott Paul RainsPublisher of Rolling Rains Report
here are two productive ways to enter this topic of
governmental policies that facilitate travel by peo-
ple experiencing disabilities. One way is to look at the
most comprehensive policies. The other way is to look at
the most highly regarded policies or “best practices.” We
will do both – and take quick glances sideways to under-
stand what impact they are having around the globe.
Let me suggest first that the very best resource I have
found on this subject is a book by travel writer Candy
Harrington. Her book, “Barrier-Free Travel: A Nuts &
Bolts Guide for Wheelers & Slow Walkers” is an excellent
English-language resource on travel under US policies
for those with mobility impairments. I am reviewing the
third edition prior to publication and will quote from it
later in my comments.
The United Nations has produced the most compre-
hensive policy. Best practices are generally found in the
policies of the EU and the United States. We will look at
one UN document and a set of relevant US policies. I
focus on US policy because I am better qualified to speak
with authority on them than on European policy. I expect
that my colleagues will be better suited to reporting the
EU situation.
If we were to also examine business policies we would
discover that these are underdeveloped. They react to
governmental policy so we must understand government
policy first. Business policy in the travel industry, with few
exceptions, is still driven by fear of the cost of non-com-
pliance to government enforcement. Development of
mature business policies requires a complete reversal of
assumptions by the industry. The market value of cus-
tomers who experience disabilities must be recognized.
Then business can innovate with policy based on its own
internal logic of producing sustainably profitable product
rather than grudgingly enacted compliance. As I suggest-
ed yesterday this means systemic design thinking where
those who experience disabilities are imagined as vital
customers long before products, policies, or places are
built.
Concentrating our comments on governmental poli-
cies then, let’s begin with the most comprehensive per-
spective. This comes from looking at the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(CRPD). Within the CRPD Article 30 establishes policy on
leisure travel. Article 30 is entitled, “Participation in
Cultural Life, Recreation, Leisure, and Sport.”
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities or CRPD is an assertion, at the
level of international law, of the human rights of all per-
sons with disabilities. It is unique in that it addresses all
aspects of travel: the right to travel freely, accessibility of
the means of travel and of destinations, and the right to
full participation in society – cultural inclusion. It is also a
legal framework for evaluating the sufficiency of existing
national legislation on these topics.
A Comparative Analysis of Disability Laws in the
United States to the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has been
done by the United States National Council of
Disabilities.
Here is a quote from the document’s comparison of
Article 30 of the CRPD to US Law:
Article 30 - Participation in Cultural Life, Recreation,
Leisure, and Sport
The United States’ approach to participation in cultural
life, recreation, leisure, and sport is based almost entire-
ly on an antidiscrimination model. This means that to
T
2ND ROUND TABLE
Accessible tourism: for well-being in disability
s s s
Extracts from the Proceedings of the International Conference
102
the extent that such opportunities exist for the general
population, the federal government provides a legal
right to people with disabilities to participate in such
activities without discrimination.
In terms of enforcement, the Department of Justice has
made accessibility of cultural and recreation facilities a
priority.
But the larger project envisioned by Article 30, includ-
ing enabling persons with disabilities to develop and
utilize creative and artistic potential, establishing sup-
port and recognition of specific cultural and linguistic
identities, and encouraging mainstreaming of sporting
opportunities, is largely left to private actors and advo-
cacy organizations.
Accordingly, a gap exists between U.S. law and CRPD
protection, albeit one that could be filled with aggres-
sive implementation and/or additional Congressional
action.
Let me make one of those side notes I promised. It is
about Asia. It illustrates the dynamics at work in this pol-
icy gap. The dynamic there is being repeated around the
world in different forms.
I consult with government, industry, and advocacy
groups around the world on travel and disability. I
observe that developed nations generally place more
responsibility on government while less developed
nations rely on the actions of business. This has led us in
the advocacy sector in Asia to hold an international con-
ference every two years asserting a rights-based
approach to tourism and disability.
The purpose is to bridge gaps between the laws in
Asian nations and the CRPD vision. It also allows us to
influence business practice. I traditionally give the open-
ing keynotes which I can provide to anyone who would
like copies to research this in more depth.
Our first conference was held in Taipei in 2005, our
second conference, hosted by the United Nations, took
place in Bangkok in 2007, and our current conference,
partially funded by the sister of the king of Thailand, is
about to occur in Singapore. The conferences arose from
the United Nations’ Biwako documents and the
Millennium Plan. In other words, this initiative for
Inclusive Tourism by the advocacy sector represents a
continent shifting toward comprehensive government
policy as tool for the economic development of nations
and specifically as a tool for the socio-economic inclusion
of persons experiencing disability.
I feel that the historic significance of our gathering
here sponsored by the Carlo Besta Institute holds the
promise of bringing a fourth informed voice to policy
development – the medical community – as well as a
deepened commitment by Italy which is already well-
respected globally for its economic development and
disability projects. Hopefully this side note will stir some
creative thinking about how and where you can become
involved in policy development.
Now to return to analyzing the US situation.
The legal situation in the United States is somewhat
confused. There are two main pieces of legislation
impacting the process of travel for those who experi-
ence disability. These laws are the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Air Carriers Access Act
(ACAA). Two other laws are also important. These are
relevant during travel but also before travel during the
planning, decision-making, and reservation process.
The first law is known as the Telecommunications Act of
1996. It deals with telephone and television accessibili-
ty. The second law is referred to as “Section 508”
although the full title is Section 508. It deals with online
communication.
THE ADA
Part of the confusion in the US over the ADA and the
ACAA (besides the fact that it all sounds like alphabet
soup) is that not even the experts in charge of enforce-
ment know where enforcement of one stops and the
other begins. In general the ADA protects you on the
ground and the ACAA once you are in the airplane.
Another area of confusion exists because laws
become more or less powerful through amendments,
judicial action, or further policy decisions.
A quote from the United States National Council of
Disabilities about what the ADA (the Americans with
Disabilities Act) covers is helpful:
Coverage of United States Law
United States domestic law has several provisions that
prevent discrimination against people with disabilities
in cultural life, recreation, leisure, and sport. Many such
NEUROLOGY OF THE THIRD MILLENNIUM
103
activities take place at privately owned places of public
accommodation – that is, privately owned businesses
or establishments that open themselves up to the pub-
lic – and are covered by Title III of the ADA. As such,
the owners and operators cannot discriminate in the
full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommoda-
tions.
Title III’s reach has therefore extended significantly into
recreation and cultural opportunities for people with
disabilities. The organizers of sports and recreation
activities must make reasonable accommodations
unless such accommodation would fundamentally alter
the nature of the goods or services being provided.
Thus, for example, the Professional Golf Association
had to provide a golf cart as a reasonable accommoda-
tion to a professional golfer to allow him to participate
in tournament play. A requested accommodation also
does not have to made if it causes a direct threat to the
health or safety of others. Title III has been applied to
sports leagues; i.e., its coverage is not limited to actual
locations.
Similarly, as with any Title III covered entity, facilities that
house cultural and recreational opportunities have
accessibility obligations. Facilities that predate the ADA
must be accessible to the extent that doing so is “read-
ily achievable,” and new facilities (and modifications to
existing facilities) must be more fully accessible to peo-
ple with disabilities in accordance with the [US building
code known as] ADAAG standards. The accessibility of
entertainment venues (sports stadiums and movie the-
atres) has been a heavily litigated area. In particular,
there have been several “line of sight” cases, involving
the issue of whether people who used wheelchairs are
entitled to seats where they can see over people who
stand in the rows in front of them. Another frequently
litigated issue is whether wheelchair seating in stadium-
style movie theaters must offer choices of position with-
in the theater, and to what extent wheelchair seating
must be integrated into the stadium seating section of
the theater.
Telecommunications Act & Section 508
In the interest of time I will comment only briefly that
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 directed the US
Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules
requiring closed captioning of most, though not all, tele-
vision programming. It protects the right to alternative
phone networks for the deaf which are the technological
backbone for the videophones you will now find at
O’Hare Airport and drives some of the manufacturer
interest in Universal Design in cell phones.
Also briefly let me note that section 508 is the US
manifestation of what you may experience in Europe
more directly through the Web Accessibility Initiative
(WAI) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
Section 508 is the mandate to use Universal Design
online that guarantees, for example, applications to read
text aloud for blind or visually impaired users.
Although I pass over these things briefly today I
observe an unresolved problem everywhere I travel and
research. The need for quality information appropriate to
those with limited or different functionality presented
and presented in accessible formats is simply not being
met. Perhaps that should teach me that I must spend
more time on the subject!
THE ACAA
Let me close with one example from the Air Carriers
Access Act (ACAA). It is a quote from one of my favorite
books on travel and disability, Candy Harrington’s
“Barrier-Free Travel: A Nuts & Bolts Guide for Wheelers
& Slow Walkers.”:
Generally speaking, the ACAA outlines procedures that
airlines must follow regarding to passengers with dis-
abilities. Among other things, the ACAA mandates that
people with a disability cannot be denied boarding,
solely because of their disability. It also forbids airlines
from assessing surcharges for the services mandated by
the ACAA.
The ACAA applies to all U.S. airlines and to all commer-
cial flights to and from the United States, including
those operated by non-U.S. carriers…
Although many people take the basic non-discrimina-
tion rights in the ACAA for granted, it’s something that’s
not guaranteed worldwide. Here are some examples of
what can and does happen in places that don’t have
this kind of legal protection:
• Virgin Blue denied passage to unaccompanied
Extracts from the Proceedings of the International Conference
104
wheelchair users, who happened to be para-
lympians.
• A woman with cerebral palsy was refused passage on
a South African Express flight, because she could not
get in and out of her wheelchair without assistance.
• Air Asia prohibited disabled passengers from travel-
ing unaccompanied.
• Tiger Airways, a no-frills Singapore-based carrier,
denied passage to a 24-year-old wheelchair user,
even though she was accompanied by her family.
• Air Sahara denied passage to an unaccompanied
passenger with cerebral palsy, on the grounds that he
needed an escort or a “fitness to fly” certificate.
• Cebu Pacific denied boarding to an unaccompanied
disabled passenger with a “neurological disorder.”
• Disabled passengers who wish to fly on Aeroflot must
be cleared by the company medical department
immediately prior to boarding.
An incident she didn’t mention was wheelchair user
Sminu Jindahl being refused service on Christmas
Day 2007 by Jet Airlines. Sminu’s net worth is $1 bil-
lion dollars.
By the way, the Air Sahara incident Candy mentioned
was Rajiv Rajan last May on his way to do his job testify-
ing to the Indian government in New Dehli about the cur-
rent status of discrimination toward people with neuro-
logical and other impairments while traveling.
Any questions about why I would like to recruit you to
help us improve policy?
¨¨¨
Editors
Ferdinando CornelioScientific Director
National Neurological Institute Foundation “Carlo Besta”Milan
Graziano ArbostiManager
Socio-Sanitary Research, Scientific DirectionNational Neurological Institute Foundation “Carlo Besta”
Milan
Paolo CornelioResearcher
Socio-Sanitary Research, Scientific DirectionNational Neurological Institute Foundation “Carlo Besta”
Milan
Scott Paul RainsPublisher of Rolling Rains Report
Scientific Committee
F. Cornelio, CoordinatorM. FiniL. Tesio
G. FilippiniF.A. Compostella
M. ImbrianiL. Battistin
M. MelazziniG. Filippi
M. Carletti
Organising Committee
G. Arbosti, CoordinatorM. LucianoG. De LeoP. Cornelio
C. GalloG. MavelliaC. PuppoL. VincenziN. Gianotti
top related