- April 27, 2018

>> Updates from Days 5-7 (16-18 April)
>> Main Page: Bridge CRPD-SDGs First Module Uganda

On This Page:

Day 2 – Friday, 13 April 2018

The first session of the day was the ‘two-minute one article’ exercise, which started with the Article 11 on Situations of Risk and Humanitarian Emergencies. Co-facilitators provided feedback and inputs, starting with a brief discussion with the group, and then summarising the main messages related to the article. Article 16 on Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse was then done in the same manner.

Subsequently, the training explored the fundamentals of the CRPD, with a plenary session on celebrating diversity. This was followed by group exercises on equality and non-discrimination, discussing examples of discrimination in the participants’ local context, outcomes of different approaches to equality and different grounds of discrimination. Each group fed back to plenary, then there was a discussion around the topic, including on questions about indirect discrimination, multiple discrimination, reasonable accommodation, denial of reasonable accommodation and how the CRPD deals with these issues.

After lunch, Ugandan co-facilitators took the group through ‘equality between men and women’, starting with an animated discussion around practical household and family examples, leading to discussions and explanations of the concepts of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. Interactive exercises then gave participants the opportunity to express their opinions on issues regarding gender, that led to questions about power and opportunity, and pulled out questions about the influence of culture, beliefs and barriers. The facilitators summed up the session after referring back to the CRPD, focusing on Article 6 and the CRPD principles.

The last session of the day was on accessibility. Co-facilitators started with a brainstorming session in plenary, followed by a presentation showing how accessibility is a prerequisite towards inclusion, with examples. The group then split into four teams, each of which did a simplified accessibility audit of one part of the hotel. Session to be finalised with feedback on the next day.

Day 3 – Saturday, April 14 2018

The morning opened with participants, in small groups, to present one article in five minutes in an interactive and innovative way. The first group focused on article 7, setting up a role-play in an inclusive classroom. Although there were some small issues of discrimination in the beginning, the children, one who uses a wheelchair and one who was deaf, argued and played as all children do, and learned together in a barrier-free environment (including a sign interpreter). During playtime, the teacher was approached by a stranger who announced himself as representing a large donor organisation that had compassion for children with disabilities and wanted to set up institutions to ensure they were very well ‘cared for’. The teacher refused.

The role-play was followed by an interactive discussion amongst the group, highlighting how this reflects society and the various articles of the CRPD that should be used to enforce avoiding segregation and promoting inclusion in society.

The facilitators then took the group through a short recap of the previous day, where participants highlighted their learnings on needs requirement of different impairment groups, how society perceives roles of men and women and the general principles of the Convention.

This was followed by the conclusion of the accessibility session from the previous day, where the four teams that had done an accessibility audit of the various parts of the hotel provided feedback to the whole group in plenary. Facilitators promoted discussions around the steps required to ensure effective accessibility (including making a plan, budget allocation, auditing and involving persons with disabilities and their representative organisations in every step), relating to the specific articles (focus on article 9) of the Convention.

This introduction to accessibility has provided a good basis to lead into the major session, Access, accessibility and reasonable accommodation. Facilitators took participants through the criteria to measure the right to access basic services (availability, affordability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality), using a PowerPoint presentation, building on the differences between reasonable accommodation and accessibility. The presentation was followed by a plenary discussion. In the afternoon, the group was divided into small groups and each group received a case situation to identify if there was discrimination based on disability, and if so, each reasonable accommodation or accessibility would be put in place to address the discrimination. Each group presented their case and built explanation on the proposed measure.

The final session of the day, Self-determination and autonomy, was done as an interactive, full group exercise using the ‘swamp’ technique. A case study was explained to participants (a young adult who had been given medication (including injection and electroconvulsive therapy) against its will and preferences but following a decision from its family who were acting ‘in his/her best interests’. Participants were asked to take advance arguments in favour of the family or in favour of the person and the session was built with a debate. The group in favour of the family focused on how the person was at risk of suicide and ‘unable’ to decide what was best for him/herself in this situation. The ‘disagree’ side (majority of the participants) won the debate by pointing out how the legal capacity of the person had been infringed, without any supported decision making, also, been subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment and there was no informed consent (therefore violating general principles and several articles, including 12, 21, 15, 19 and 16). A lively debate followed through the group, with some leading questions, in particular, a detailed reflexion on limitations to the principle of ‘the best interests of a person’, versus the principle of the ‘will and preferences of the person’.

Day 4 (half-day) – Sunday,  15 April 2018

The day was started with a recap of the previous day. Highlights from the participants were the clarification of access and accessibility, the discussion around reasonable accommodation, and the case study on legal capacity.

The recap was followed by the activity ‘two-minute one article’ with two articles presented: articles 32 on international cooperation and 21 on Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information, which were followed by feedback from participants and co-facilitators.

A group of co-facilitators representing different groups of underrepresented persons with disabilities led a recap on the general principles of the CRPD (article 3). A co-facilitator with deafblindness introduced the session with a general overview and passed on to co-facilitators with intellectual disabilities, which showed to the group a selection of images, promoting discussion on which principles they most closely represented. A deaf co-facilitator then summed up the session and there was clarification on the differences between general principles and all of the other articles of the Convention.

The session was followed by an introduction on the Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), led by a co-facilitator with psychosocial disabilities and a co-facilitator hard of hearing, that explained the five critical dimensions (five Ps) of the Agenda 2030 and making a comparison between the SDGs and the MDGs. This introduction was followed by a practical exercise on linking the 17 goals and the CRPD articles. Participants were asked to stick some articles of the CRPD next to the most appropriate of the 17 Goals already pasted up onto the wall (the majority of the CRPD articles were stick around Goal 10 – Reduce inequality). The participants were then split into five groups, each given one specific target and asked to discuss how disability inclusion - specifically, the CRPD - relates to the target. They fed back from the groups to plenary. A co-facilitator, representative of the National Union of Disabled Persons (NUDIPU) and leader in Uganda, then gave a summary on her experience at the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF), as Uganda had volunteered to be reviewed, and NUDIPU was involved. She explained her experience and encouraged all DPOs to get involved in monitoring mechanisms in future.

Before the end of this half-day, participants did a role-play depicting Article 29 on Participation in political and public life as their ‘five-minute one article’ exercise. This showed persons with various disabilities wishing to vote and give their candidature to be elected, facing discrimination and demanding their rights. A co-facilitator led the feedback with an interactive discussion with participants.

See more by

Category: BRIDGE, CRPD, CRPD Committee

Country: Uganda

Population group: