Popular in Law

Human Rights Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

Max Planck Institute Anne Peters

Law

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

University of Virginia Joshua Fischman

Constitutional Law

What is constitutional ideology?

University of Oxford Nick Barber

Civil Procedure Law

Politics, Identity, and Class Certification on the U.S. Courts of Appeals

University of Pennsylvania Sean Farhang

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Carers and human rights: the parallel struggles of disabled people and carers for equal treatment

View more insights in Professional - Law - Human Rights Law

View more figures from University of Leeds

View the page of Luke Clements

Read the Study

Next in Human Rights Law

The Discursive Evolution of Human Rights Law

Renana Keydar, Vera Shikhelman | Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

Anne Peters | Max Planck Institute

Luke Clements considers the struggle being waged by unpaid carers (sometimesreferred to as ‘caregivers’) for recognition as ‘rights holders’.

Image courtesy of interviewee. March 25, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

The speaker, an experienced lawyer involved in human rights litigation, discusses their journey into writing legislation for carers and addressing issues related to disability rights and the treatment of carers. They trace the evolution of disability rights since the 1970s and draw parallels between the civil rights movements for various disadvantaged groups, highlighting the historical treatment of disabled people and the emergence of a strong narrative advocating for their rights.

The speaker outlines what constitutes a "constitutional moment" for these groups, emphasizing the need for self-identification, recognition of oppression, and a unifying creed. They reference the social model of disability, which argues that societal barriers, rather than individual impairments, are the true obstacles faced by disabled people.

The discussion extends to the recognition of carers as a significant demographic that requires legal rights protection similar to that achieved for disabled individuals. The speaker notes the challenges that carers face, including poor health outcomes and financial issues, and emphasizes that caring roles are often gendered, rendering them invisible.

They argue that there is a growing movement to secure rights for carers, paralleling historical movements for disability rights. The speaker concludes with a cautious optimism regarding recent legal advancements for carers, yet acknowledges the ongoing struggle to achieve a clear legal definition of who qualifies as a carer and to ensure that their rights are adequately protected.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.205 --> 00:03.445
I suppose I'm a lawyer and I have been very involved in

00:03.535 --> 00:07.565
human rights litigation for various disadvantaged groups,

00:08.025 --> 00:12.445
and through sort, sort of serendipity, I ended up,

00:12.445 --> 00:14.845
being asked to write some legislation for carers,

00:15.225 --> 00:16.605
got involved in carers,

00:16.705 --> 00:20.525
and I saw the similarities between that sort

00:20.525 --> 00:24.765
of embryonic carers movement, 15,

00:24.765 --> 00:27.205
20 years ago, and the other movements

00:27.205 --> 00:30.085
that had happened in the second half of the last century.

00:30.265 --> 00:32.165
And, and I just wrote about it.

00:32.315 --> 00:33.725
Well, it varies throughout the world.

00:33.985 --> 00:37.265
Um, looking at the UK in,

00:37.485 --> 00:39.665
in the law is in in good shape.

00:40.045 --> 00:44.785
Um, the UK has been seen as a leader in,

00:45.045 --> 00:49.745
most countries when they're talking about developing

00:50.075 --> 00:52.705
their carers legislation, particularly in Europe,

00:52.765 --> 00:56.305
but in the US and sort of the Anglo-Saxon world

00:56.305 --> 00:58.705
and to a degree in, in Asian countries.

00:58.705 --> 01:01.905
They look to the uk. The UK has for just historical

01:02.545 --> 01:05.025
accident reasons, being at the forefront

01:05.025 --> 01:06.425
of drafting that legislation.

01:06.885 --> 01:10.385
So it's very good show. When I wrote this paper,

01:10.885 --> 01:14.505
2010 on years ago, I think in, in,

01:14.605 --> 01:19.065
in many practitioners mind, there was, a memory

01:19.565 --> 01:24.545
of a early BBC program called Does He Take Sugar?

01:25.755 --> 01:29.335
Um, and that was in 1977 initially,

01:29.955 --> 01:33.255
and it was at a time when disabled people were

01:34.025 --> 01:36.695
completely changing their identity from

01:37.255 --> 01:39.935
compliant cripple people in wheelchairs.

01:39.935 --> 01:41.655
And the legislation talked about cripples

01:41.835 --> 01:45.415
and handicap people, into sort of,

01:45.415 --> 01:46.895
in a way human rights activists.

01:47.275 --> 01:49.895
Um, and so it had this very provocative title

01:49.955 --> 01:50.975
of Does he take sugar

01:50.975 --> 01:53.535
because it, you, you talked about 'em, you didn't talk

01:53.535 --> 01:57.215
to them because they were incoherent, incapacitated people,

01:57.635 --> 02:00.455
but they weren't, they were becoming,

02:00.825 --> 02:02.735
human rights champions effectively.

02:03.075 --> 02:05.335
And they were saying, we have rights the same, you know,

02:05.395 --> 02:09.095
we are the discriminated like, racial groups

02:09.275 --> 02:10.455
and, and sexual groups.

02:11.275 --> 02:15.775
Uh, and that was building on, the civil rights movement,

02:15.775 --> 02:17.535
particularly in the US and so on.

02:18.595 --> 02:23.575
And they, they have, in my opinion,

02:23.675 --> 02:25.935
all of these, disadvantaged groups have

02:25.935 --> 02:27.495
what I would call a constitutional moment.

02:28.245 --> 02:32.655
Very often those moments come out of, massive unhi,

02:32.765 --> 02:35.975
upheavals war or, or something similar.

02:36.715 --> 02:40.535
Um, and I frame the argument to say

02:40.535 --> 02:42.615
that they needed really three issues.

02:42.685 --> 02:44.855
They needed to, as a group identified.

02:45.715 --> 02:48.455
Um, so they needed to be identified by the state,

02:48.515 --> 02:50.215
but also to self-identify.

02:50.765 --> 02:54.455
They needed to have a narrative of oppression that,

02:54.455 --> 02:56.255
that they had been treated disadvantage.

02:57.655 --> 03:02.005
And finally they needed a creed that could crystallize,

03:02.585 --> 03:06.285
those two factors into a campaign.

03:06.985 --> 03:08.685
Uh, and of course, disabled people had

03:08.705 --> 03:11.565
for long been adversely treated by the law.

03:11.915 --> 03:15.125
They had trouble, I think, forming a group identity,

03:15.345 --> 03:19.805
but the law had treated them in a, for very many years.

03:19.865 --> 03:21.885
And in terms of lunatic legislation

03:22.065 --> 03:24.485
and, dispossessing them of the right

03:24.705 --> 03:28.005
to make decisions on certain issues, they

03:28.985 --> 03:30.805
had a strong narrative of oppression

03:30.805 --> 03:33.005
because of the law was framed in negative terms.

03:33.745 --> 03:34.765
And for them,

03:35.025 --> 03:38.085
the constitutional moment was the social model of disability.

03:38.085 --> 03:42.765
Michael Oliver's idea that people weren't

03:43.565 --> 03:47.445
handicapped because they lacked the ability to walk.

03:47.475 --> 03:50.285
They were handicapped because somebody put the polling

03:50.285 --> 03:52.005
station at the top of a flight of stairs

03:52.005 --> 03:55.045
and they couldn't vote, not for any innate reason.

03:55.065 --> 03:57.605
It was an external form of oppression.

03:58.385 --> 04:02.965
Uh, and that came at a, at a crucial junction history.

04:03.185 --> 04:07.645
Um, I think the Vietnam War is the sort of motive there,

04:07.765 --> 04:12.125
a lot of highly educated, scripted people going to Vietnam,

04:12.185 --> 04:15.885
coming back, disabled people, and being treated adversely,

04:15.985 --> 04:18.365
and then building a campaign.

04:18.785 --> 04:22.805
So in, in 19 77, 78, 98, you were,

04:23.275 --> 04:26.725
this was becoming, concrete.

04:27.305 --> 04:30.845
And we were then being, you know, there was big arguments.

04:30.845 --> 04:33.325
They should add disabled people to the list

04:33.325 --> 04:35.845
of prohibited characteristics and discrimination.

04:36.665 --> 04:40.285
So we had the race,

04:40.285 --> 04:43.405
discrimination legislation in the sixties and seventies

04:43.425 --> 04:46.205
and equal opportunities rec,

04:46.235 --> 04:47.645
legislation in the seventies,

04:47.785 --> 04:49.445
sex discrimination legislation.

04:49.785 --> 04:54.525
It seemed very difficult to argue that disability should be

04:55.085 --> 04:57.205
a characteristic, because of course, there are lots

04:57.205 --> 04:59.085
of things to say, well, people certainly can't do

04:59.085 --> 05:02.205
because of their impairments, which isn't really true

05:02.315 --> 05:03.725
with sex or race.

05:04.065 --> 05:07.165
So it was a big pushback. People were very skeptical.

05:07.305 --> 05:09.965
But of course, in the Americans with Disability,

05:09.995 --> 05:13.605
acts comes along in 1990 and fairly shortly

05:13.615 --> 05:16.085
after that, you get a whole raft

05:16.105 --> 05:18.045
of other countries following suit.

05:18.145 --> 05:22.405
In the uk we had the Disability Discrimination Act in 95.

05:23.425 --> 05:25.285
Um, and in a way, the rest is history.

05:25.625 --> 05:30.125
In 2006, you get a UN declaration, a UN convention,

05:30.125 --> 05:31.885
the rights of persons with disabilities.

05:32.345 --> 05:34.285
So I was arguing that,

05:34.705 --> 05:37.925
the similar constitutional moment was coming for carers.

05:37.945 --> 05:39.645
It wasn't just he take sugar,

05:39.785 --> 05:41.205
its does your carer take sugar?

05:41.265 --> 05:44.245
But in fact, they had the, the raw ingredients for

05:45.245 --> 05:48.325
a constitutional moment, those three ingredients.

05:48.505 --> 05:52.325
And well, the Creed for Disabled People was,

05:52.665 --> 05:55.565
the classic, argument of Michael Oliver,

05:55.745 --> 05:57.165
the social model of disability.

05:57.945 --> 06:02.245
Um, and his, his, the front cover of his book,

06:03.225 --> 06:07.485
the 1990 book was a disabled person in a wheelchair at the

06:07.485 --> 06:08.725
bottom of a flight of stairs.

06:08.865 --> 06:12.045
And at the top was a sign saying polling station.

06:12.185 --> 06:16.965
And his argument was that people are not handicapped

06:17.545 --> 06:18.805
by their impairment.

06:19.595 --> 06:22.525
They have handicapped by the, the idiot, basically

06:22.525 --> 06:24.805
that put a polling station at the top of a flight to sticks.

06:24.865 --> 06:27.085
And that society had been constructed

06:27.185 --> 06:29.285
for able-bodied people, and

06:29.285 --> 06:33.805
therefore needed to be, destructed in a way,

06:33.905 --> 06:35.565
or reconstructed in a way

06:35.795 --> 06:37.885
that didn't handicap disabled people.

06:38.025 --> 06:41.365
But getting rid of barriers was the problem.

06:41.505 --> 06:44.165
The physical barriers, the attitudinal barriers, the,

06:44.665 --> 06:45.965
the administrative barriers.

06:46.505 --> 06:48.765
And that was, I mean, it is a brilliant idea.

06:48.875 --> 06:50.645
It's been obviously refined a lot.

06:51.065 --> 06:55.285
Um, but it completely turned the argument over.

06:55.785 --> 07:00.085
And people would say, look, I'm a repressed, not internally,

07:00.425 --> 07:01.685
I'm externally oppressed

07:01.685 --> 07:04.005
by the way the state is, is running thing.

07:04.225 --> 07:06.925
Uh, and the yeah, as I say, I think the rest is history on

07:06.925 --> 07:08.285
that, changed.

07:09.065 --> 07:11.765
And, we are now at a stage

07:11.765 --> 07:13.685
where it's unquestionably accepted

07:13.755 --> 07:17.125
that disabled people should be a protective status

07:17.745 --> 07:20.005
and shouldn't be the victims of discrimination

07:20.185 --> 07:21.965
and have fundamental human rights.

07:22.705 --> 07:26.565
Uh, which for me as a young lawyer 50 years ago,

07:26.565 --> 07:31.365
45 years ago, seems strange, but now it's just routine.

07:32.445 --> 07:34.445
I always find it ex extraordinary.

07:34.565 --> 07:38.605
I mean, now I'm a pretty well full-time academic,

07:39.515 --> 07:40.615
and, and I get the students

07:40.675 --> 07:42.535
to look at the founding documents,

07:42.535 --> 07:44.335
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights,

07:44.335 --> 07:46.175
the International Covenant on Human Rights,

07:46.195 --> 07:48.655
the International Covenant on Social Economic Economics,

07:48.655 --> 07:50.495
the European Convention on Human Rights.

07:51.235 --> 07:53.495
Um, and you look at those groups, you know,

07:53.595 --> 07:55.415
no one should be treated adversely

07:55.415 --> 07:59.375
because of their sex race, national status,

07:59.665 --> 08:01.415
birth origins, and so on.

08:01.755 --> 08:03.815
But workability is not in any of those.

08:04.315 --> 08:06.415
But now we have a UN convention.

08:07.035 --> 08:10.015
And if you look at the rights protected, not to be tortured,

08:10.075 --> 08:13.055
not to be made a slave, be able to express yourself,

08:13.235 --> 08:14.695
the right to care isn't there.

08:14.725 --> 08:16.735
There's the right to care is not in any

08:17.675 --> 08:19.045
international document,

08:19.875 --> 08:22.655
but it's the most fundamental right that exists.

08:22.805 --> 08:24.975
None of us would exist if we weren't

08:25.495 --> 08:26.775
provided with care as babies

08:27.315 --> 08:31.895
or at other stages, that, that somehow, you know, you have

08:31.895 --> 08:33.815
to sort of say, well, well, is there a right to care?

08:33.835 --> 08:36.815
And then you say, well, of course there's a right to care,

08:36.815 --> 08:39.295
because if we didn't do that, the world wouldn't exist.

08:39.475 --> 08:40.975
The human world wouldn't exist.

08:41.515 --> 08:45.695
And yet people are routinely punished for caring.

08:45.965 --> 08:49.415
They are carers, unpaid carers have some

08:49.415 --> 08:51.095
of the worst health outcomes, some

08:51.095 --> 08:53.415
of the worst financial situations,

08:54.355 --> 08:57.165
un since I've written the paper, has produced

08:58.065 --> 08:59.625
a document on extreme poverty.

09:00.085 --> 09:02.745
The Rapporteur saying it's very difficult

09:02.745 --> 09:06.465
to imagine any human right that isn't fundamentally affected

09:06.645 --> 09:11.505
by the unpaid and highly gendered caring, roles

09:11.765 --> 09:13.465
and difficulties that carers have.

09:14.005 --> 09:16.185
So, so it is ex I think it's very strange,

09:16.285 --> 09:18.785
and I think that if, if caring wasn't so gendered,

09:18.785 --> 09:21.225
it probably would've been in some of these

09:21.745 --> 09:24.665
original documents, but it was just, it's not seen there.

09:24.845 --> 09:26.265
But when you explain it that way,

09:26.385 --> 09:27.985
I think people will say, yeah, sure it's right.

09:28.005 --> 09:29.905
But why do we need to have that as a human? Right?

09:29.905 --> 09:33.865
Well, because people are treated adversely because of it.

09:33.865 --> 09:35.505
The thing about caring is so interesting is

09:35.505 --> 09:38.025
that it's gendered, and that's why it's largely invisible,

09:38.165 --> 09:40.585
and it's normally done behind closed doors.

09:40.645 --> 09:44.225
And there's something sort of, yeah, unusual about it,

09:44.775 --> 09:47.105
even though it's sort of ubiquitous.

09:47.645 --> 09:50.145
The argument was that there was a sort

09:50.345 --> 09:52.825
of constitutional moment coming for carers,

09:53.565 --> 09:55.345
as a group.

09:55.455 --> 09:59.345
They historically have been identified in legislation a lot.

09:59.685 --> 10:02.145
The 1601 poor law

10:02.695 --> 10:05.145
made it a legal obligation on families to care

10:05.205 --> 10:06.985
for other family members.

10:07.455 --> 10:11.065
That obligation exists pretty well throughout the world.

10:11.535 --> 10:14.865
Even in the us the majority of states have

10:15.335 --> 10:19.345
what we call failure responsibility obligations, common law,

10:19.405 --> 10:21.105
civil law countries in Europe,

10:21.125 --> 10:22.625
Europe have that obligation.

10:23.055 --> 10:24.785
They exported that to South America.

10:25.575 --> 10:29.225
Confucian countries have those obligations too.

10:30.055 --> 10:35.025
Curiously, the UK got rid of failure responsibility in 1948,

10:35.725 --> 10:39.105
when it abolished the libel, the, the poor laws.

10:39.685 --> 10:42.665
But that sort of cultural norm continues.

10:43.325 --> 10:47.865
And for very interesting sort of serendipitous re causes.

10:48.405 --> 10:53.305
The UK had a sort of movement on carers, which

10:53.935 --> 10:55.545
started in the sort of eighties

10:56.045 --> 10:59.585
and eventually culminated in a private member's bill called

10:59.585 --> 11:04.105
the Carers Recognition Act, which was then, copied

11:04.765 --> 11:07.185
in much of, well, particularly the,

11:07.285 --> 11:09.105
the Anglo-Saxon world in Europe.

11:09.605 --> 11:13.305
Uh, so you were beginning to get legal recognition care

11:13.605 --> 11:16.745
as people that the government didn't wanna upset.

11:16.745 --> 11:17.865
There's an awful lot of them.

11:18.005 --> 11:21.345
And, their voting is probably quite important.

11:21.855 --> 11:25.225
Care has always had a problem self-identifying,

11:25.805 --> 11:27.585
as the way I think disabled people did

11:27.585 --> 11:29.145
that the Vietnam veterans didn't wanna

11:29.145 --> 11:30.305
say, I'm a disabled person.

11:30.735 --> 11:33.385
They wanted to say, look, I'm a a law lecturer,

11:33.385 --> 11:36.065
or I'm a mechanic, or I'm something like that.

11:36.365 --> 11:39.265
So getting identities always been quite a difficult problem

11:39.265 --> 11:40.585
with some oppressed groups.

11:41.245 --> 11:43.545
But you, you had this proliferation

11:43.645 --> 11:47.505
of carers organizations in the 1990s

11:47.565 --> 11:51.385
and ever since, so there was no problem about it having an

11:51.625 --> 11:53.645
identity, very much a identity entity,

11:54.345 --> 11:55.805
a narrative profession.

11:55.805 --> 11:59.605
Well, as I I've said, the statistics on carer wellbeing,

11:59.605 --> 12:00.685
they're just truly dreadful.

12:01.025 --> 12:04.805
Um, women end up with half the pension pots

12:04.805 --> 12:09.045
of men in general, even in Anglo-Saxon countries, largely

12:09.045 --> 12:11.285
because of caring, not for children,

12:11.545 --> 12:16.125
but for, dependents, health-wise,

12:16.955 --> 12:19.365
over half of all carers have a caring related health

12:19.365 --> 12:20.925
condition, and so on and so on.

12:21.585 --> 12:25.485
So the adverse impact of being a carer,

12:26.025 --> 12:27.085
is profound.

12:27.745 --> 12:30.525
And the question was, what's the creed going to be?

12:31.025 --> 12:35.005
Uh, and in my paper, I argued that it was,

12:35.395 --> 12:36.685
vulnerability theory.

12:36.825 --> 12:39.445
And I, I talk about somebody I think is amazing,

12:39.445 --> 12:42.005
Martha Feynman, who argued that, you know,

12:42.035 --> 12:43.725
there's universal vulnerability.

12:44.245 --> 12:45.485
Nobody's invulnerable

12:46.025 --> 12:49.885
and just the state privileges, various groups to be more

12:50.485 --> 12:51.485
resilient than other groups.

12:51.985 --> 12:55.805
And, wealthy people, people who can go private,

12:55.945 --> 12:58.445
who can pay for their children's education,

12:58.505 --> 13:02.605
who can introduce them to colleagues and so on, networks.

13:03.625 --> 13:05.205
And that the, the argument was

13:05.205 --> 13:06.765
that it was the state's obligation,

13:06.935 --> 13:10.045
responsive state's obligation to compensate

13:10.105 --> 13:13.205
for the vulnerabilities that people had to

13:14.055 --> 13:16.925
build up their re resilience effectively and effectively.

13:17.025 --> 13:21.405
Um, she's a feminist scholar, compensate women for

13:22.305 --> 13:27.165
the caring role that many people take on gladly,

13:27.825 --> 13:30.765
but they shouldn't be, financially punished.

13:31.705 --> 13:34.525
So I argued that there was that moment, and

13:34.525 --> 13:38.485
therefore, carers would become in time one

13:38.485 --> 13:40.885
of the protected ga categories in discrimination,

13:41.785 --> 13:45.285
and that there was a very strong argument for caring, being

13:45.965 --> 13:48.965
recognized as a human right, for which you like expression.

13:48.965 --> 13:51.125
You shouldn't be treated a adversely

13:51.125 --> 13:54.325
because you express, you know, standard views.

13:55.425 --> 13:57.685
And that was sort of 2013.

13:57.965 --> 14:02.455
I think now on nearly everything,

14:02.725 --> 14:04.695
that I talk about, I'm normally wrong.

14:05.235 --> 14:08.455
Um, I, I just tend to get history wrong.

14:09.115 --> 14:11.095
Uh, I've made these predictions

14:11.395 --> 14:13.775
and, you know, you wind the clock forward

14:13.875 --> 14:15.615
and you think that was not right.

14:15.755 --> 14:18.695
It didn't happen that way. The unusual one about this is it

14:18.695 --> 14:22.055
sort of, even though I've changed my mind a bit about this

14:22.055 --> 14:26.855
issue, it seems that that view has proved to be not,

14:26.875 --> 14:28.055
not completely incorrect.

14:28.595 --> 14:30.215
Um, shortly

14:30.225 --> 14:34.935
after I, I wrote the article, the un, major report on,

14:35.515 --> 14:38.695
the human rights impact of unpaid care.

14:38.695 --> 14:42.615
In, we just recently had a,

14:42.815 --> 14:46.255
a really pivotal decision of the UN Convention on the Rights

14:46.255 --> 14:49.615
of Persons with Disabilities Committee in, a,

14:49.855 --> 14:52.325
a case called Bulia in Italy, where they have said

14:52.355 --> 14:55.205
that carers have rights under the Disabled People's

14:55.205 --> 14:57.525
Convention, and they found a violation in relation

14:57.525 --> 14:58.645
to a female carer.

14:59.375 --> 15:03.205
We've had, a European Court of Human Rights case against

15:04.205 --> 15:07.885
Croatia, largely a discrimination case.

15:08.145 --> 15:12.085
And we've also had the associative discrimination case,

15:12.165 --> 15:14.805
a talk about in, in the case, a case called Coleman

15:15.465 --> 15:19.085
Law in 2018, significantly

15:19.645 --> 15:22.845
expanded in UK law, in 2021.

15:23.465 --> 15:27.765
So indirectly, kiers are now

15:28.315 --> 15:31.765
well protected under bits of discrimination law,

15:31.765 --> 15:34.685
and indirectly their human rights are being

15:35.445 --> 15:37.605
recognized, but not directly.

15:38.145 --> 15:40.805
Um, so we still haven't got to that pivotal moment.

15:41.045 --> 15:42.325
I probably changed my opinion

15:42.325 --> 15:44.525
because I, there was a risk of me being correct,

15:44.945 --> 15:47.125
and so I, I went incorrect.

15:47.505 --> 15:50.165
Um, yeah, I have got a paper, I haven't written it,

15:50.165 --> 15:53.685
but I've analyzed all of these decisions from the point

15:53.685 --> 15:55.525
of view about what impact they've had.

15:56.515 --> 15:58.695
Uh, we as lawyers tend to see a decision

15:58.835 --> 16:01.095
and think, that's great, you know, we won the case,

16:01.435 --> 16:04.935
get some photographs, get in the newspaper,

16:04.995 --> 16:06.935
and then get on with the next case.

16:07.395 --> 16:10.015
But winning a case is the beginning, not the end

16:10.015 --> 16:12.255
of the struggle because it's gotta be implemented

16:12.675 --> 16:15.615
and it's got to bring about sort of constitutional change.

16:16.115 --> 16:18.495
And if you look at the history of

16:19.435 --> 16:23.335
discrimination legislation, particularly, it,

16:23.405 --> 16:26.295
it's called sort of Nancy Fraser talks about it

16:26.295 --> 16:28.415
as being progressively neoliberalism.

16:28.755 --> 16:30.415
It, it, it, it talks the talk,

16:31.075 --> 16:32.575
but it still allows the government

16:32.575 --> 16:35.095
to walk the Goldman Sachs walk, basically,

16:35.405 --> 16:38.725
that it doesn't upset the economic basis.

16:38.985 --> 16:42.765
And Sabi Basti wrote an analysis of the impact

16:42.985 --> 16:45.645
of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990

16:45.665 --> 16:48.845
and said it really hadn't changed the discrimination,

16:48.905 --> 16:50.645
the adverse position of,

16:50.645 --> 16:52.365
of black people in the US at all.

16:53.065 --> 16:57.965
Um, so we clinging to the non-discrimination rights,

16:57.965 --> 16:59.925
and we think they're great triumphs,

17:00.385 --> 17:02.965
but they do very little to unsettle the universe

17:03.505 --> 17:07.045
of disadvantage, that we need

17:07.045 --> 17:08.685
to probably pull other knee levers.

17:08.685 --> 17:10.965
And, and Martha Thyman says that herself,

17:11.505 --> 17:14.445
but she's not really interested in protected categories.

17:15.055 --> 17:18.325
She's interested in attacking privilege.

17:18.825 --> 17:23.085
Um, so maybe I spent too much time with Martha.

17:23.265 --> 17:24.765
She was a colleague here,

17:25.025 --> 17:28.405
and she's not the sort of person I'd like to disagree with,

17:28.425 --> 17:30.965
but actually is somebody I do like to agree with.

17:31.345 --> 17:34.085
So maybe discrimination is, is an easy win.

17:34.315 --> 17:36.245
Curiously, I know it's a big struggle,

17:36.865 --> 17:40.565
but it doesn't necessarily change the position

17:40.745 --> 17:42.805
of those protected groups

17:43.385 --> 17:45.005
to the degree that we'd like to see.

17:45.575 --> 17:48.365
There been some positive legal conclusions to,

17:49.105 --> 17:54.005
Um, the paper comes out in 2013, I think it was.

17:54.765 --> 17:58.285
I was then the expert advisor to parliament,

17:58.465 --> 18:00.765
the joint houses of the Parliament on the Care Act.

18:01.185 --> 18:04.405
And that act gives carers exactly the same rights

18:04.405 --> 18:07.525
effectively in social care in the UK as disabled people.

18:07.635 --> 18:10.485
It's the first piece of legislation in the world to do that.

18:11.305 --> 18:14.445
So carers have really become embedded within the lung,

18:14.825 --> 18:18.605
and there's very positive, as I I've said,

18:18.945 --> 18:22.125
acknowledgements within, international discrimination

18:22.145 --> 18:25.765
and human rights legislation that,

18:25.765 --> 18:27.525
these things have got to be addressed.

18:27.985 --> 18:29.485
Uh, so yeah, I think

18:30.065 --> 18:32.045
the things are moving in the right direction.

18:32.665 --> 18:36.045
The problem remains, always

18:36.755 --> 18:39.485
with the law in how do you define a carer,

18:39.795 --> 18:43.725
because of course, most of us are carers one

18:43.725 --> 18:45.045
or more times in our lives,

18:45.425 --> 18:49.045
but that's not, that's not, so I think, yeah, the line

18:49.045 --> 18:49.725
of travel is.

Evolution of Human Rights for Carers

00:00:00 - I suppose I'm a lawyer and I have been very involved in human rights litigation for various disadvantaged groups, and through sort, sort of serendipity, I ended up, being asked to write some legislation for carers, got involved in carers, and I saw the similarities between that sort of embryonic carers movement, 15, 20 years ago, and the other movements that had happened in the second half of the last century.
00:00:32 - Well, it varies throughout the world. looking at the UK in, in the law is in in good shape. the UK has been seen as a leader in, most countries when they're talking about developing their carers legislation, particularly in Europe, but in the US and sort of the Anglo-Saxon world and to a degree in, in Asian countries. They look to the uk. The UK has for just historical
00:01:05 - of drafting that legislation. So it's very good show. When I wrote this paper, 2010 on years ago, I think in, in, in many practitioners mind, there was, a memory of a early BBC program called Does He Take Sugar? and that was in 1977 initially, and it was at a time when disabled people were
00:01:37 - compliant cripple people in wheelchairs. And the legislation talked about cripples and handicap people, into sort of, in a way human rights activists. and so it had this very provocative title of Does he take sugar because it, you, you talked about 'em, you didn't talk to them because they were incoherent, incapacitated people, but they weren't, they were becoming, human rights champions effectively. And they were saying, we have rights the same, you know,
00:02:09 - and, and sexual groups. and that was building on, the civil rights movement, particularly in the US and so on. And they, they have, in my opinion, all of these, disadvantaged groups have what I would call a constitutional moment. Very often those moments come out of, massive unhi, upheavals war or, or something similar.
00:02:40 - that they needed really three issues. They needed to, as a group identified. so they needed to be identified by the state, but also to self-identify. They needed to have a narrative of oppression that, that they had been treated disadvantage. And finally they needed a creed that could crystallize, those two factors into a campaign.

Legal Challenges and Advocacy for Disability Rights

00:03:08 - for long been adversely treated by the law. They had trouble, I think, forming a group identity, but the law had treated them in a, for very many years. And in terms of lunatic legislation and, dispossessing them of the right to make decisions on certain issues, they had a strong narrative of oppression because of the law was framed in negative terms. And for them, the constitutional moment was the social model of disability.
00:03:43 - handicapped because they lacked the ability to walk. They were handicapped because somebody put the polling station at the top of a flight of stairs and they couldn't vote, not for any innate reason. It was an external form of oppression. and that came at a, at a crucial junction history. I think the Vietnam War is the sort of motive there, a lot of highly educated, scripted people going to Vietnam,
00:04:15 - and then building a campaign. So in, in 19 77, 78, 98, you were, this was becoming, concrete. And we were then being, you know, there was big arguments. They should add disabled people to the list of prohibited characteristics and discrimination. So we had the race, discrimination legislation in the sixties and seventies
00:04:46 - legislation in the seventies, sex discrimination legislation. It seemed very difficult to argue that disability should be a characteristic, because of course, there are lots of things to say, well, people certainly can't do because of their impairments, which isn't really true with sex or race. So it was a big pushback. People were very skeptical. But of course, in the Americans with Disability, acts comes along in 1990 and fairly shortly
00:05:16 - of other countries following suit. In the uk we had the Disability Discrimination Act in 95. and in a way, the rest is history. In 2006, you get a UN declaration, a UN convention, the rights of persons with disabilities. So I was arguing that, the similar constitutional moment was coming for carers. It wasn't just he take sugar, its does your carer take sugar? But in fact, they had the, the raw ingredients for
00:05:48 - And well, the Creed for Disabled People was, the classic, argument of Michael Oliver, the social model of disability. and his, his, the front cover of his book, the 1990 book was a disabled person in a wheelchair at the bottom of a flight of stairs. And at the top was a sign saying polling station. And his argument was that people are not handicapped

Reconstructing Society for Inclusive Accessibility

00:06:19 - They have handicapped by the, the idiot, basically that put a polling station at the top of a flight to sticks. And that society had been constructed for able-bodied people, and therefore needed to be, destructed in a way, or reconstructed in a way that didn't handicap disabled people. But getting rid of barriers was the problem. The physical barriers, the attitudinal barriers, the, the administrative barriers. And that was, I mean, it is a brilliant idea.
00:06:51 - but it completely turned the argument over. And people would say, look, I'm a repressed, not internally, I'm externally oppressed by the way the state is, is running thing. and the yeah, as I say, I think the rest is history on that, changed. And, we are now at a stage where it's unquestionably accepted that disabled people should be a protective status and shouldn't be the victims of discrimination
00:07:22 - which for me as a young lawyer 50 years ago, 45 years ago, seems strange, but now it's just routine. I always find it ex extraordinary. I mean, now I'm a pretty well full-time academic, and, and I get the students to look at the founding documents, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Social Economic Economics, the European Convention on Human Rights.
00:07:53 - no one should be treated adversely because of their sex race, national status, birth origins, and so on. But workability is not in any of those. But now we have a UN convention. And if you look at the rights protected, not to be tortured, not to be made a slave, be able to express yourself, the right to care isn't there. There's the right to care is not in any international document, but it's the most fundamental right that exists.
00:08:25 - provided with care as babies or at other stages, that, that somehow, you know, you have to sort of say, well, well, is there a right to care? And then you say, well, of course there's a right to care, because if we didn't do that, the world wouldn't exist. The human world wouldn't exist. And yet people are routinely punished for caring. They are carers, unpaid carers have some of the worst health outcomes, some of the worst financial situations,
00:08:58 - a document on extreme poverty. The Rapporteur saying it's very difficult to imagine any human right that isn't fundamentally affected by the unpaid and highly gendered caring, roles and difficulties that carers have. So, so it is ex I think it's very strange, and I think that if, if caring wasn't so gendered, it probably would've been in some of these original documents, but it was just, it's not seen there.

The Invisible Burden of Caregiving

00:09:26 - I think people will say, yeah, sure it's right. But why do we need to have that as a human? Right? Well, because people are treated adversely because of it. The thing about caring is so interesting is that it's gendered, and that's why it's largely invisible, and it's normally done behind closed doors. And there's something sort of, yeah, unusual about it, even though it's sort of ubiquitous. The argument was that there was a sort of constitutional moment coming for carers, as a group.
00:09:59 - The 1601 poor law made it a legal obligation on families to care for other family members. That obligation exists pretty well throughout the world. Even in the us the majority of states have what we call failure responsibility obligations, common law, civil law countries in Europe, Europe have that obligation. They exported that to South America.
00:10:30 - Curiously, the UK got rid of failure responsibility in 1948, when it abolished the libel, the, the poor laws. But that sort of cultural norm continues. And for very interesting sort of serendipitous re causes. The UK had a sort of movement on carers, which started in the sort of eighties
00:10:59 - the Carers Recognition Act, which was then, copied in much of, well, particularly the, the Anglo-Saxon world in Europe. so you were beginning to get legal recognition care as people that the government didn't wanna upset. There's an awful lot of them. And, their voting is probably quite important. Care has always had a problem self-identifying, as the way I think disabled people did
00:11:29 - say, I'm a disabled person. They wanted to say, look, I'm a a law lecturer, or I'm a mechanic, or I'm something like that. So getting identities always been quite a difficult problem with some oppressed groups. But you, you had this proliferation of carers organizations in the 1990s and ever since, so there was no problem about it having an identity, very much a identity entity, a narrative profession. Well, as I I've said, the statistics on carer wellbeing,
00:12:01 - women end up with half the pension pots of men in general, even in Anglo-Saxon countries, largely because of caring, not for children, but for, dependents, health-wise, over half of all carers have a caring related health condition, and so on and so on. So the adverse impact of being a carer, is profound. And the question was, what's the creed going to be?

Universal Vulnerability and Caring Rights

00:12:35 - vulnerability theory. And I, I talk about somebody I think is amazing, Martha Feynman, who argued that, you know, there's universal vulnerability. Nobody's invulnerable and just the state privileges, various groups to be more resilient than other groups. And, wealthy people, people who can go private, who can pay for their children's education, who can introduce them to colleagues and so on, networks.
00:13:05 - that it was the state's obligation, responsive state's obligation to compensate for the vulnerabilities that people had to build up their re resilience effectively and effectively. she's a feminist scholar, compensate women for the caring role that many people take on gladly, but they shouldn't be, financially punished. So I argued that there was that moment, and
00:13:38 - of the protected ga categories in discrimination, and that there was a very strong argument for caring, being recognized as a human right, for which you like expression. You shouldn't be treated a adversely because you express, you know, standard views. And that was sort of 2013. I think now on nearly everything, that I talk about, I'm normally wrong.
00:14:09 - I've made these predictions and, you know, you wind the clock forward and you think that was not right. It didn't happen that way. The unusual one about this is it sort of, even though I've changed my mind a bit about this issue, it seems that that view has proved to be not, not completely incorrect. shortly after I, I wrote the article, the un, major report on,
00:14:38 - In, we just recently had a, a really pivotal decision of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Committee in, a, a case called Bulia in Italy, where they have said that carers have rights under the Disabled People's Convention, and they found a violation in relation to a female carer. We've had, a European Court of Human Rights case against Croatia, largely a discrimination case.
00:15:12 - a talk about in, in the case, a case called Coleman Law in 2018, significantly expanded in UK law, in 2021. So indirectly, kiers are now well protected under bits of discrimination law, and indirectly their human rights are being recognized, but not directly.

Challenges in Understanding Legal Change and Care

00:15:41 - I probably changed my opinion because I, there was a risk of me being correct, and so I, I went incorrect. yeah, I have got a paper, I haven't written it, but I've analyzed all of these decisions from the point of view about what impact they've had. we as lawyers tend to see a decision and think, that's great, you know, we won the case, get some photographs, get in the newspaper, and then get on with the next case. But winning a case is the beginning, not the end
00:16:12 - and it's got to bring about sort of constitutional change. And if you look at the history of discrimination legislation, particularly, it, it's called sort of Nancy Fraser talks about it as being progressively neoliberalism. It, it, it, it talks the talk, but it still allows the government to walk the Goldman Sachs walk, basically, that it doesn't upset the economic basis. And Sabi Basti wrote an analysis of the impact
00:16:45 - and said it really hadn't changed the discrimination, the adverse position of, of black people in the US at all. so we clinging to the non-discrimination rights, and we think they're great triumphs, but they do very little to unsettle the universe of disadvantage, that we need to probably pull other knee levers. And, and Martha Thyman says that herself, but she's not really interested in protected categories.
00:17:18 - so maybe I spent too much time with Martha. She was a colleague here, and she's not the sort of person I'd like to disagree with, but actually is somebody I do like to agree with. So maybe discrimination is, is an easy win. Curiously, I know it's a big struggle, but it doesn't necessarily change the position of those protected groups to the degree that we'd like to see.
00:17:49 - the paper comes out in 2013, I think it was. I was then the expert advisor to parliament, the joint houses of the Parliament on the Care Act. And that act gives carers exactly the same rights effectively in social care in the UK as disabled people. It's the first piece of legislation in the world to do that. So carers have really become embedded within the lung, and there's very positive, as I I've said,
00:18:22 - and human rights legislation that, these things have got to be addressed. so yeah, I think the things are moving in the right direction. The problem remains, always with the law in how do you define a carer, because of course, most of us are carers one or more times in our lives, but that's not, that's not, so I think, yeah, the line