Let God Provide Your Attendant Services:
Religious Groups Weigh in on the Sexual Rights of People with Disabilities

Each day brings us new lows in the public communications about the current round of drafting at the UN's committee to develop a convention on the rights of persons with disabilities happening in New York this week. If you didn't catch yesterday's post, last week the UN began what they hope is a final round of discussions on a draft treaty on the rights of people with disabilities (one that would be legally binding, and similar to the UN treaty's on the rights of women, the rights of children, the rights of migrants).

It's hard to get news from disability organizations who are attending the talks as few are writing on line, but there are plenty of organizations that do not represent people with disabilities that are making their views known. The UN did put out this release today that indicated there were problems in the negotiations, but it leaves out the sex part. Other than that, we’re mostly hearing from self-serving, hypocritical politicians and religious leaders who are only interested in pushing their politico-religious agendas and obviously have no understanding of disability issues. Let's consider the most offensive and inane first:

The World Congress of Families (a pro-life organization whose goal is to "affirm that the natural human family is established by the Creator and essential to good society.") issued a press release "UN Convention on Disabled Raises Grave Concerns" that focuses on two elements of the current draft of the treaty: the one that states people with disabilities have a right to sexual and reproductive services, and the one that states that people with disabilities have a right to "experience their sexuality".

In order to establish that they’re the good guys who are on the side of people with disabilities (which clearly they are not) the head of the organization makes a most bizarre argument that the current wording of the treaty (wording which has definitely, and appropriately, been influenced by disability rights organizations) would result in reducing the protection of people with disabilities from euthanasia. From their press release:

"The treaty's danger lies in its ambiguous language. For instance, the International Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. in 1948, speaks of the 'worth' as well as the 'dignity' of the individual. By contrast, the Disability Treaty speaks only of their 'dignity,' but not their 'worth.' Since euthanasia advocates use the expression 'death with dignity,' there's a reasonable fear that a convention intended to secure their rights actually could lead to the killing of the disabled."

I'm not sure if this poor excuse for an argument works on anyone, but God help them if it does. Suggesting that a document on disability exclude the word "dignity" because crackpot organizations choose to use the term in their slogans is not an argument, it's a distraction. What are they trying to distract us from? Maybe it's their real interest in changing the treaty wording, although they don't hide that interest for long. A little further down in the press release is this gem:

Finally, the draft document says those with disabilities have an unqualified right to "experience sexuality" and "have intimate sexual relations." "What does this mean?" Carlson [the organization's leader] asked. "In marriage or outside of marriage? Is there any age limitation? Does this establish a right to homosexual as well as heterosexual relations? For families, these undefined terms could be ticking time bombs."

Ticking time bombs indeed. First they're going to want to have sex, then have gay sex, and then before you know it sex-pot people with disabilities will be the ones to tear down the fine institution of marriage.

Of course what pro-life organization isn’t going to step into the fray and tell people with disabilities (who by and large continue to be disproportionately affected by eugenics programs, and reproductive technology advocates that often walk a fine eugenic-ish line) how they should think and feel about abortion. From the release:

The draft also recognizes a right of persons with disabilities to "reproductive health services," without defining the term. Said Carlson: "Proponents of abortion use the term to mean unhindered access to abortion. If that's what it means here, as it well may, the disabled -- whose own existence is threatened -- are being given the right to end the lives of others."

It’s hard to figure out what Carlson is saying here about people with disabilities existence being threatened. It’s possible that he’s offering a cogent analysis of the dangers of euthanasia or reproductive technologies to the lives of people with disabilities. But I’m more inclined to think that Carlson assumes that everyone with a disability also has a life threatening illness. Either way, no one can accuse Carlson on this point of treating people with disabilities differently than he treats all women. No one in his book should have the right to control their bodies (well no one but Carlson himself).

In a final dig at the UN, the release ends with an announcement of an upcoming meeting in Warsaw of the World Congress of Families:

World Congress of Families IV will convene in Warsaw, Poland May 11-13, 2007. Unlike the United Nations, we are committed to securing the rights of all people, from birth to natural death.

All people except homosexuals, and people with disabilities who want to have sex outside marriage, or anyone who chooses to get an abortion, or…

Previously - Next, They’ll Be Coming For You: Denying Basic Sexual Rights at the UN

Read more:

• Latest news about the Convention from the UN
• Disabled People International Convention Update