The call from a UK-based NGO to allow some Swazi women and children of ‘unsound mind’ to be sterilised to stop them having babies breaks two United Nations' conventions.
Regular readers will know there has been controversy over a call by Linda Kanya of Skillshare International to give the guardians of women and children of ‘unsound mind’ the ‘option of sterilizing their child’.
Kanya made her comments in the Times Sunday of 11 May 2008. After I wrote about this, Kanya responded by saying my ‘blog entry is sensationalizing’ what she wrote.
I will return to the point of ‘sensationalising’ later in this blogpost, but first to the United Nations.
Kanya and Skillshare are clearly violating The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons (1971).
Article 1 of the convention states, ‘The mentally retarded person has, to the maximum degree of feasibility, the same rights as other human beings.’
Article 6 reads in part, ‘The mentally retarded person has the right to protection from exploitation, abuse and degrading treatment.’
It is clear to me that sterilising a person because they are of ‘unsound mind’ is abuse and degrading treatment under Article 6. Unless Kanya is also advocating that mothers of children who, shall we say are of ‘sound mind’, should have the option to have their children sterilised, then Kanya’s proposition also violates Article 1.
Kanya and Skillshare also violate the rights of the women and children of ‘unsound mind’ under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (1975).
Article 4 reads in part, ‘Disabled persons have the same civil and political rights as other human beings.’
Clearly, sterilising women and children deprive them of their human rights under Article 4.
So, I think the case is against Kanya and Skillshare. This must lead us to ask why did Kanya write an article that so clearly contravenes two United Nations conventions?
Only Kanya can give us a definitive answer. I suspect that Kanya did not deliberately decide to contravene the conventions. I say this because I would like to respect Skillshare, which states that it is a non discriminatory organisation. So perhaps the answer is that Kanya is not aware of the existence of the two conventions.
This leads us rather neatly to the question of ‘sensationalising’ Kanya’s original article.
I have had a spirited email from Teresa Debly, who firstly defends the blog against the accusation of sensationalism and then goes on to question the ‘expertise’ of Kanya and her qualifications to make judgements about women of ‘unsound mind’.
Here is the email in full.
I do not believe "Your blog entry is sensationalizing the article."
On the contrary, Rooney is questioning the article and using critical thinking to understand "news" from the Swazi papers. As far as I can see, Rooney is employed at a university and generally academics do not shy away from debate.
Perhaps we should all shut up and just believe what this "expert" says?And who is this expert - a qualified medical officer, a trained "women's health reproductive" specialist?
Should one expert's opinion reign supreme over other opinions, for that is all this article truly is. There are no numbers, statistics or even studies mentioned to back up the opinion. Is this science or ethics?
In the article, Kanya wrote NGOs and government have responded to the epidemic with full force, educating on and providing prevention measures. This is not accurate, not at all!
I will not comment on NGOs but government, for over 20 years, has been the main contributor to the health crisis in Swaziland. Cabinet minister have talked about condoms being "unSwazi", they have felt it more important to have an international airport or jet for the king then getting rats out of the Mbabane hospital, and they continue to beg donors for assistance since they are chowing down every every god damn cent that is within sight.
The government has moved beyond being negligent and is enabling a "HIV genocide". Kanya also seems to avoid the core of this issue.
If we are concerned with the reproductive health of "unsound" people - or is it just girls - then it seems to me we should first ask, "what is available for patients with mental illness in Swaziland?"
Most reader will be able to answer "nothing, absolutely nothing." When the government feels no responsibility to the citizens, "sound or unsound", and let's the entire health system 'go to hell' what really is necessary for a "final solution"?
Personally, I would rather see Makosetive castrated then some teenage girls "sterilized"!
See also
CALL TO STERILISE SWAZI CHILDREN
SILENCE ON SWAZI CHILD STERILISATION
THE SWAZI STERILISATION ARTICLE
SWAZI CHILD STERILISATION - REPLY
No comments:
Post a Comment