Rights processes unsettle the status quo, they defeat denial by challenging powerful institutions or practices that entrench prejudice or inequality even in well-meaning individuals and organizations.
The principle that one cannot be more or less human than any another member of our society is the most unprecedented act of love and equality we can all aspire to.
As limited as legal instruments may be, I believe we shouldn’t succumb to a buffet of opposing arguments for example, that rights are a “hollow hope” or, that rights “have gone too far” in protecting clients from needed treatment. This only succeeds in obscuring the significance and meaning of dialogue that can occur through tribunals, lower and higher courts particularly for people who are otherwise rendered voiceless.
Can we do more improve access to justice? Yes. Do the courts or tribunals work for everyone? No. The noteworthy work of authors such as Sherene Razack and Dian Million speak brilliantly to the way in which legal processes become a spectacle of colonial power instead of delivering justice to historically oppressed groups.
Though we have much more work to do, there have been some notable gains:
Prior to 1988, psychiatric patients were restricted from voting in psychiatric facilities, now election representatives visit psychiatric hospitals to facilitate elections for inpatients. (See: Lifting voting restrictions on mental patients (video))
In 2007, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal released a decision upholding the right of people with a mental health disability to be appropriately accommodated in the workplace under Ontario’s Human Rights Code after a complaint was filed by an individual who was fired when he disclosed a psychiatric disability at work.
In 2008, the Dream Team (a group of consumer survivors dedicated to housing advocacy) filed a Human Rights complaint against a member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) who made derogatory remarks about people with mental health and addiction issues.
In 2010, an important case at the Ontario Court of Appeal acknowledged that serious alcohol or drug dependence constitutes a “disabling condition” and therefore individuals with addictions should not be discriminated against and should be eligible for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.
I am also reminded that a Charter challenge on the right to housing was heard at the Ontario Court of Appeal this past May (2014) and this included interveners who cared about the lack of housing in our province.
Currently under way: A class action whereby individuals can file claims seeking compensation from the settlement funds from Huronia Regional Centre and other institutions to “right the wrongs” committed against people with intellectual disabilities.
Since people with mental health and addiction disabilities constitute a substantial percentage of our local and global community, we should care about this policy. And since we are all vulnerable and will struggle with some sort of disability at some point in our life, we should care about this policy.
I would also like to suggest that we move away from the current over reliance on the ambiguous language of stigma that never identifies who or what is causing discrimination and open up to the conversations and possibilities of “rights in action.”
The OHRC policy ventures into new territory on how mental health and addiction discrimination should be addressed in employment, housing and social services. There is potential for change and “action” by naming, identifying and changing practices.
The Empowerment Council would love to know what you think.
What challenges and opportunities lie ahead?
Where do you think law and policy should be in 10 years?
share
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Can we count on your support?
Donate to improve mental health care for everyone.
