【發言稿-中英對照】CRPD國際審查會人約盟十七個團體共同聲明代表:行無礙、新活力、酷兒盟

台北市行無礙資源推廣協會代表 總幹事 許朝富 發言稿:

大家好,我是行無礙資源推廣協會(Taiwan Access for All)總幹事許朝富(Jacky Hsu),今天代表17個團體協力完成的平行報告提出幾項回應。

首先,我國政府仍以慈善/醫療模式,常以「關懷、愛心、服務」的心態面對身心障礙者的議題。而未體認到CRPD「要讓身心障礙者在與其他人平等的基礎上享有權利」的實質意義,
例如在應提供的基礎無障礙設施服務常見「愛心鈴」、「愛心櫃檯」、「博愛電梯」標示,提供臨時性的友善協助,卻不願意承擔全面無障礙,推動基本人權的責任。甚至,再將無障礙視為少數特殊需求,僅採用設施的1%的比例(例如高鐵席次)或300平方公尺(例如餐廳)的服務規模做設施設置標準,使得常民生活餐廳、旅館、商店等等無障礙淪為口號。新的國家公共建設例如高鐵、桃捷的無障礙輪椅席區甚至低於1%。

政府不僅無法提出促進平等權利的政策,而且也在決策過程中忽略了身心障礙者的參與。目前除了行政院、各部會及各地方政府之身權小組具有一定比例之身心障礙者代表規定,其他場域並不存在確保身心障礙者參與決策與意見表達之制度性設計,因而政府補助舉辦活動若非直接與身心障礙有關則不會有無障礙規劃與服務;又多數委員代表都是官方選任,忽略長期耕耘與積極建議的聲音,未符合「Nothing about us without us」原則,以及《CRPD》第33條第3段之要求。

第二,根據CRPD施行法,政府應逐條盤點施行法律與行政命令與CRPD之間之落差,然而此項法規檢視工作僅就文字表面替換,無法有效檢視國內法規與與公約實質不符之處。
例如我們在參與法規檢視時,多數僅僅針對法規字面上是否有明確拒絕或歧視用語,檢視工作流於形式,並未針對如何保障身心障礙者的權益,及如何擴大參與的軟硬體服務,訂定合理的法條或規範。

第三,政府對「無障礙」的觀念僅限於物理環境,且對於既有建築物之規範僅包含部分特定建築。
例如《菸害防制法》所稱的「公共場所」泛指供公眾使用的場所,但障礙者相關法規的「公共場所」卻需逐項討論且限定條件,又侷限於固定建築物。建物之外的其他環境、設施、展覽、服務等等供使用或向公眾開放的場所,並未全面納入法規要求。政府應編訂無障礙規範時,從障礙者的完整生活面向加以分類,並且照顧到不同障礙類型的不同需求。

我先提以下幾個面向,可以看到政府執行無障礙,似有若無的敷衍態度:

1.校園無障礙主要仍限制在教學大樓,嚴重忽視身心障礙生平等參與校園生活的權利,最糟糕的是住宿缺乏無障礙規劃,且身心障礙障礙生對於移位機、人力助理等需求,被認為是應自行負擔的個人問題,有些學校甚至要求家人陪同住宿。

2.由於辦公場所與工廠長期未被納入無障礙法規規範,身心障礙者連進入職場面試都有困難,而且政府辦理或委託辦理補助辦理的職訓班,長期無視障礙者的需求,連基本無障礙環境都沒有,使身心障礙者無法自由參加有興趣的職業技能訓練課程或者在職訓練課程。

3.戶外休閒與遊憩場所無障礙的相關辦法避重就輕、無法可管。以《都市公園綠地各主要出入口無障礙設施設置原則》為例,僅只規範主要出入口,因此只要有一個出入口為無障礙就算合法。然而,整個公園綠地、動線、其他出入口,或者設於公園的其他休憩設施(例如成人體健設施與兒童遊戲場)等並未完整列入無障礙要求。

4.手語翻譯只在公共電視有單一時段的手語新聞台,其他電視台僅只於重要新聞現場有提供部分手語翻譯,然而大概只佔畫面1/8的一小角,同時又被新聞台的跑馬燈和各種字幕圖案交錯覆蓋。同時,即時新聞字幕缺乏,毫無口述影像聲道可以使用,嚴重影響視、聽障者閱聽權。電子書,法規並未規範出版業者須使用明盲共用的電子書格式;必須仰賴額外的語音後製軟體,資訊獲取量少、速度慢。

5. 針對其他設施及服務,我們要求政府必須制訂適用於不同場域特性內涵的無障礙設計規範與指導手冊,並透過定期教育訓練推行於公私立場所。

第四,政府未體認「合理調整」在落實身心障礙權利的重要性,更未要求雇主或服務提供者有提供合理調整的義務。
政府於國家報告中坦承我國並未對於「合理調整」有明確定義,竟然未能進一步自我檢視相關法規、提出立/修法改善的期程與計畫。

雖然現行《身權法》似已帶有一定的合理調整精神,例如:第16條要求各類公、私機關部門在公開辦理考試時,應提供身心障礙者「多元化適性協助」;第30條要求教育主管機關在辦理教育與入學考試時,應依其障礙類別、程度、學習及生活需要,提供各項必需之資源以保障身心障礙者公平合理接受教育之機會與應考條件;第33條也規定,身心障礙者本人或其監護人得以向各級勞工主管機關提出申請,以獲得「職務再設計」等個別化與專業化的職業重建服務等。

然而,身心障礙者在教育或工作場所提出之特別要求,仍經常遭到拒絕。《身權法》並沒有定義「合理調整」之義務範圍及其承擔者、判斷是否「合理」之客觀標準,以及拒絕提供合理調整之罰則。
根據《CRPD》,合理調整的精神應該擴及落實在教育與工作以外的一切生活面向中,但因為合理調整在台灣仍缺乏法律根據,在現行法規未規範要求時,義務承擔者(duty-bearer)拒絕按照身心障礙者之請求展開協商或提供調整時,不論是透過司法訴訟或是行政申訴,都很難被認定為歧視,特別是就業方面。

Jacky Hus, Taiwan Access for All

The government adopts the medical model, and often uses “love, caring, and service” as their slogan, and fails to recognize that PWD should have rights on equal basis as others. For example, the presence of numerous “love service bell”, “love service desk”, “love elevator” signs only point out the provision of temporary assistance instead of an overall effort toward making accessibility possible. In many settings, accessibility facilities were regarded as meeting the needs of a minority, such as the wheel-chair seats in Taiwan Speed Rail is less than 1%, and only restaurants larger than 300 square meters are required to be accessible. This makes accessibility to restaurants, hotels, shops and traffic impossible. In the process of making these policies, the participation of PWD was either absent or limited. Unless directly related to PWD, the voice of PWD is neglected. This violates Article 33.3 of CRPD.

After the Act to Implement the CRPD in 2014, the government agencies started to examine their laws against the CRPD, but they could only pick out obvious patterns of violation, such as exclusion. The laws were not amended to ensure the protection of rights of PWD, or to ensure participation.

Government’s perception of “accessibility” is often limited to the physical environment, and the regulation on existing buildings were limited to some particular buildings.

The “public places” in Tobacco Control Act includes a wide range of places, but in “People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act”, the term “public places” was subjected to scrutiny, often limited to building while ignoring physical setup of outdoor environments, facilities, exhibitions, and services. When regulating accessibility, the government should start from the living experience of PWD and try to include all the aspects of community activities, and different needs of multiple categories of disabilities.

Let me point out some examples to illustrate the attitude of the government:
The accessibility facilities in schools are often only required in the teaching buildings but not other parts of campus, such as the dorms.

Many working places are not accessible. Vocational trainings were carried out in locations without accessibility, and the programs were not designed to suit the needs of PWD.

Outdoor facilities for recreation and leisure were often left half-regulated. Take “Principles on accessibility of main entrances of parks and green lands” for example, it only requires that one entrance gate meets the accessibility standards, whereas the facilities, other entrances, and equipment were unregulated.

For TV programs, sign language is provided in only one news program on Public Television Station. For other TV channels, sign language is only present in important occasions and occupies only 1/8 of the screen; TV news do not have subtitles. Electronic books are rare.

The government should issue guidelines for accessibility regulations and guiding principles suitable for various occasions and purposes, and provide proper training.

Regarding reasonable accommodation, the state report admits that there is no definition for reasonable accommodation in laws. However, since 2014, the government has not taken any step towards promoting the application of this fundamental principle. Currently the law requires that during examinations for schools or recruitment, accommodation is required, in addition, employers will receive subsidy when they apply for “task re-design” for employees with disabilities. However, reasonable accommodation has not been made an obligation, and PWD were often denied when they asked for adjustment in education and employment settings. The “People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act” does not define the obligation and duty bearer for reasonable accommodation, the criteria for judging reasonableness, or penalties for noncompliance.

台北市新活力自立生活協會代表 專案經理 林君潔 發言稿:

我們不是障礙者, 我們是人,但我們沒有人權,是政府失能把我們變成障礙者!
We are not disabilities. We are persons.
We do not have human rights because the government disabled us.
我是台北市新活力自立生活協會(New Vitality Independent Living Associationa ,Taipei )專案經理林君潔(Chun Chieh Lin),今天代表17個團體協力完成的平行報告提出幾項回應。

1、CRPD 2014年內國法化至今政府毫無積極作為,從中央政府到地方政府的基層公務人員缺乏身心障礙者權利的理解,到現在還是認為我們是浪費社會資源的負擔、是個人與家庭的責任、是慈善給予的對象。雖然國家象徵性地做了法規檢視工作,但未有後續改善措施,許多歧視及不平等待遇,依然暗藏於行政處分、服務契約、計畫或地方自治法規未被檢討。如:(1) 金融監督管理委員會獎勵補助保險業者提供微型保單給身心障礙者,造成身心障礙者無法擁有和一般人一樣投保及獲賠的權利;(2) 居家照顧服務契約中明定服務員若無法協助障礙者移位時,可以拒絕協助洗澡,而把服務內容改為擦澡;(3) 住宅法第54條有明定保障任何人不得拒絕身心障礙住戶設置無障礙空間之權利,但設置無障礙空間或設施相關補助要點,卻明定申請補助須經過其他住戶一定比例同意方可設置。

2、由於政府未有積極作為及擬定逐步落實措施與規劃,造成行政單位公務人員對於CRPD理解不足,於施政時依然不斷侵害障礙者的基本人權。在司法體系內,更是只有少數的法官願意引用CRPD,甚至有法官認為引用CRPD作出判決後,將帶來的龐大效應及社會制度的變革,而法官不願意扮演此種促進社會改變的責任,反而對於障礙者人權及歧視採極為保守態度。我們更擔心若法官做出不利判決,成為判例,影響未來其他審判。另外,身心障礙者權利公約施行法第8條不僅賦予身心障礙者尋求救濟之權利,更明定國家提供法律扶助之義務,但至今未見我們政府具體作法出現。

3、障礙者在台灣即便年滿20歲仍未被視為獨立行使權利的成年個體。為保障障礙者基本人權,需要靠許多社會福利服務支持,但在台灣許多服務設計及補助都決定於家庭經濟或人力狀況,政府實際上僅提供家庭不足之殘補式服務,障礙者因此在社會上無法享有和一般人一樣平等生活的權利。障礙者難有穩定收入,但每一天的生活要花比一般人更多的錢,政府提供的許多服務必須去「高價購買」,造成障礙者個人需求的支持服務難以取得、難以決定自己要過什麼樣的生活,加上這些服務處處充滿著限制,零碎,不符合實際需求。因此我們要求政府不可提供高價額服務,以防在障礙族群中劃分階級產生歧視。服務提供過程應注重個別化設計,長期以來除了忽略各障別之差異與需求之外,在女性障礙者的個別需求部分,更是遭受忽視,導致服務的提供不但對性別不敏感,甚且是對性別不適當的方式。

4、身心障礙者權利公約施行法第9條明定:「各級政府機關執行公約保障各項身心障礙者人權規定所需之經費,應優先編列,逐步實施。」但近年來許多身心障礙相關服務的預算不增反減,需要高密度服務支持的重度障礙者,依然被行政單位判定應入住機構,不適合居住社區,如此明顯違反公約的處置層出不窮。我國政府長期照顧服務將障礙醫療化,最近又開放讓營利機構、保險業進駐,沒有經濟條件的障礙者更難取得適切的服務。另外,台灣亦卸責讓障礙者自費,用高工時低價位的方式雇用、剝削外勞,且其薪資低於基本工資。 我們在此呼籲政府應編列經費,並提供個別化、可近性、可負擔的服務,並取消自費使用外籍看護的障礙者使用法定服務(例如居家照顧服務及個人助理服務)之資格限制!!!

5、身心障礙者權益保障法雖然有罰則,但具我們所知,幾乎沒有人因為歧視身心障礙者受到懲罰,使得該法律僅有宣示性而沒有強制執行力。政府亦缺乏促進身心障礙者實質平等的政策與計畫。政府對身心障礙權利的落實亦缺乏具體實施及監督辦法,雖然政府設立了行政院層級的「身心障礙者權益推動小組」,但該小組兩年來沒有明顯成效因此我們要求,應儘速成立國家人權委員會以承擔獨立監督之任務。

6、國家從政策的形成、服務的制定、評估、執行到權利的保障,皆缺乏障礙當事者的參與及監督,各部會委員會障礙者比例過低且障別不多元。而且許多重大決策,都是政府單方面決定,並沒有正式的參與或諮詢程序。

Chun-Chie Lin, Independent Living Association, Taipei

Since the domestication of CRPD in 2014, the government has not taken active steps. For all levels of government, civil servants generally have not learned to understand the rights of persons with disabilities (PWD). They regard PWD as a burden on social resources, a responsibility of our own and our families, and recipients of charities. When the government examined laws and regulations in their compliance with the CRPD, they ignored many discriminatory treatment in administrative procedures, service contracts, programs, and ordinances of local governments. For example, (1) the Financial Supervisory Commission subsidized insurance companies to provide micro-insurance to PWD, preventing them from obtaining full protection. (2) Service contract for home care allows that bathing or showering of PWD be changed to towel/sponge bath when the care taker was not able to assist in moving the PWD. (3) Article 54 of the Housing Act stipulates that “No one may reject or interfere with the following actions of residence users, including necessary barrier-free renovations of their residence or public space at their own expense.” Yet relevant subsidy application requires that a certain proportion of residents in the apartment approve the renovation, contradicting the Housing Act.

Because the lack of comprehensive planning, the government still violates the rights of PWD. In the judiciary, only a minority of judges are willing to apply CRPD in their judgements. Some judges realize that their decisions would have far-reaching social impacts and repercussions for change, but they are not willing to assume this responsibility. We are concerned that conservative decisions may become precedents and have adverse effects on future cases. Article 8 of the Act to Implement the CRPD stipulates that the government shall provide legal aid when the rights of PWD are infringed, but we have not observed any substantive action on this front.

The provision of social services and support are contingent on the financial and supportive capacity of the family, while the government only adopts a residual welfare model. As a result, PWD often have to pay for services, which become fragmented and unsuitable for the needs of PWD. The high price also excludes the utilization of PWD with lower incomes. Furthermore, the assessment, design and deliverance of services often neglects different needs of PWD, particularly women with disabilities; this results in services that are gender-insensitive or even gender-inappropriate.

Article 8 of the Act to Implement the CRPD stipulates that “the cost required for the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities in the implementation of the Convention by all levels of government authorities shall be budgeted as a priority based on financial status”, but the budgets in recent years have declined. PWD requiring high intensity of supportive care continued to be institutionalized. The government is accustomed to the medicalization of care, recently this is complicated by the introduction of for-profit service providers, making it even more difficult to obtain services. In addition, Taiwan has placed its heavy burden of care to PWD, who often have no choice but to exploit migrant workers that work long hours and paid less than the minimum wage. We urge the government to allocate enough resources to provide individualized, accessible, and affordable services.

Although in the current “People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act” contains penalty clauses, however, hardly anyone has been penalized for acts discriminating PWD. On the other hand, the government does not have concrete policies and programs to promote substantive equality of PWD. Although a “committee for the promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities” was established at the Executive Yuan, hardly any policy impact was noticed. We demand that a National Human Rights Commission be established to monitor the realization of rights of PWD.
The participation of PWD in the formulation of policies, design of services, and evaluation of performances, was quite limited. The government set up some committees, but the participation is limited. Many polices were made without any formal requirement on participation or consultation.

台灣酷兒權益推動聯盟代表 秘書長 胡勝翔 發言稿:

我是台灣酷兒權益推動聯盟Taiwan Gender Queer Rights Advocacy Alliance Taiwan Gender Queer Rights Advocacy Alliance,TGQRAA ) 秘書長胡勝翔(Nelson Hu),今代表17個團體之平行報告提出幾點回應。

第一點:我國對於身心障礙者的定義與認識僅限領有身心障礙手冊(證明)者,以至於國家報告統計僅限於此。

首先,政府對於身心障礙者係指身心障礙者權益保障法下,經鑑定與評估後持有身心障礙證明方為法定身心障礙者,持有該手冊(證明)後續才能依據其需求申請各項補助、支持服務。目前身心障礙鑑定與評估系統(ICF)過於僵化,需經六個月穩定在政府指定的區域醫院等級以上穩定就診、回診方能申請身心障礙鑑定。但實務上卻忽略疾病造成的障礙、社會對於障礙者之汙名化等,舉例來說:對於極特殊罕病患者,在此鑑定系統下該疾病已確診並經醫師評估將導致肢體、認知功能快速下降,依然仍需經過六個月觀察方能申請身心障礙鑑定;對於精神疾病患者(社會心理障礙者)而言,在社會極具汙名化情況下,若要穩定回診勢必造成工作上的影響,往往需向職場請假,更甚者身份一旦曝光工作除不保外,政府亦無任何對於此行為採取任何保障,導致精神疾病患者(社會心理障礙者)不願意取得身心障礙手冊;對於多重身份者而言(係指同時擁有性別身份與障礙者身份或同時擁有原住民族身份與障礙者身份的多重身份者),以性少數社會心理障礙者為例,本因性別身份易與原生家庭關係破裂而需在外就業自立,工作本需穩定無法經常請假。若然每個月都請假回診,易導致身份曝光與工作不保,且對於多重身份者而言,並非每一個人都有這麼多時間、財力等成本去取得該手冊(證明)。

第二點:無障礙

政府現行無障礙觀念、設施仍侷限物理環境,其法規也僅包含特含部分特定建築,且僅針對特定障別之障礙者。如精神疾病患者(社會心理障礙者)在政府認知下,其肢體功能「正常」而毋須無障礙,但精神疾病患者(社會心理障礙者)之特殊性在於人與人(社會)之互動產生的障礙,但政府全然僅以外觀作為判斷依據。

第三點:支持服務需求評估

政府所提供各項支持服務採取被動式、專家學者本位主義所設計,導致諸多服務未能以障礙者為中心,除了欠缺障礙者之參與外,諸多支持服務未能因應個別化、差異化所調整。以精神疾病患者(社會心理障礙者)為例,現行僅提供專線、社區健康復建中心等被動式、專家式支持服務,且諸多服務並未考量精神疾病患者(社會心理障礙者)的需求,更多服務全然都以常人之邏輯思考,並且去脈絡化地提供服務。如:當精神疾病患者(社會心理障礙者)情緒低落或高漲時,往往被認定是「發病」,卻忽略情緒的原由。政府現行的服務也欠缺更多以障礙者為中心所發展之服務,如同儕支持等。又,現行諸多支持服務需取得法定身心障礙者身份資格,即便精神疾病患者(社會心理障礙者)另有精神衛生法規範政府須提供支持服務,但仍以專家學者為主要設計者,並未考量到精神疾病患者(社會心理障礙者)實際需求。

第四點:身心障礙者權益保障推動小組

現行各級政府(如行政院、衛福部、各級縣市政府)雖依據身心障礙者權益保障法皆設置身心障礙者權益保障推動小組,但該小組除了無法處理跨部會(局處)之事務外,其小組定位亦不明,又組成委員皆由該政府所指派(台北市除外)。同時,各部會(局處)首長亦為小組委員,部會(縣市)首長亦為小組召集人,導致部會(縣市)首長不召開會議或僅在不違反身心障礙者權益保障法情況下,無法有效確保該小組發揮保障身心障礙者之功能,且小組委員在政府指派下,全然無障礙者自主參與之精神。另外,專責審議強制住院與強制社區治療審查會之委員亦由政府指派,雖精神衛生法規定需有病人團體代表,但政府仍以指派方式為之。

Nelson Hu, Secretary General, Taiwan Gender Queer Rights Advocacy Alliance (TGQRAA )

PWD has to be assessed regularly (every 6 months) to qualify for the “disability card”, which entitle them for particular subsidies and services. To persons with invisible disabilities such as those with mental disorders, the cost of undergoing various types of assessments is too huge. They would have to go to assigned local hospitals or medical centers for assessments, pay fees for regular return visits, and request their supervisors in the workplace to approve their sick leave for each return visit, and so on. In addition, the disability card or certificates they succeed in obtaining not only fail to offer them sufficient protection of rights, but may also become an obvious target to be discriminated against by the society as well as the owner’s employers and colleagues. The fact that the safeguarding certificates eventually become a stigma-carrying label leads many persons with invisible disabilities to give up possessing these documents. For persons encountering multiple discrimination (such as PWD who are also LGBTQI or indigenous), it is even more complicated. For LGBTQI persons, there already existed tensions between the individuals and family members, the requirement of regular clinical visits often make situations worse, both at home and at work.

The government’s understanding on accessibility is limited to the physical environment. For persons with psychosocial disabilities and other invisible disabilities, the government often fails to detect their special needs in communication and during the interaction with others. The government should learn to appreciate the unique nature of accessibility in information and services for psychosocial disabilities.

Even though our “People with Disabilities Rights and Protection Act” clearly states that PWDs should receive various support services to promote independent living, However, there are no mechanism to involve and consult PWDs as to their specific needs. The services are developed by experts and scholars who often fail to respond to adjust to the differences and uniqueness in needs of persons with psychosocial disabilities. This results in service options being unsuited to practical subsistence needs or overly stringent criteria for qualification that cause difficulties for PWDs to access needed resources and underutilize services. For example, mood changes were often regarded as “episodes”, without looking into background and emotional factors causing mood variations. The State Reports pointed out that Article 8 of the Mental Health Act required the government to set up cross agency community care, support, and rehabilitation framework, but there has been a general reluctance by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and other government departments to invest sufficient personnel and financial resources to develop alternative and multidisciplinary treatment and rehabilitation support options for people with mental disabilities.

The central and local governments are required by law to set up a “Committee for the Promotion of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”, which are chaired by local government, composed of directors of various departments, and appointed experts or representatives. These committees gather only infrequently, and the appointed members often do not enjoy autonomy.

The “Mental Illness Mandatory Assessment and Community Treatment Review Committee” (“The Review Committee”) is made up of medical professionals, family members, and legal professionals. However, the appointment of the Review Committee members lacks openness and transparency, although there should be representatives of patient groups, in practice they are also appointed by the government.

備註:感謝人權公約施行監督聯盟召集人黃嵩立翻譯。

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。 必要欄位標記為 *