Disability, culture and the U.N. convention

Is the universality of human rights, such as those set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, incompatible with therapeutic strategies of respecting cultural differences? I show that universalism is essential to the notion of human rights, as well as the rarely explained, political slogan of 'the rights approach to disability'. Similarly, culture responsiveness is commonly defended by therapists. I argue that the conflict between universalism of rights and cultural sensitivity exist only if these positions are expressed in extreme form: rights absolutism and cultural relativity. If more sensibly spelled out--in the form of progressive realisation of rights and situational sensitivity of difference--there is no conflict at all. Indeed, these more reasonable positions are mutually supportive. I conclude that, given resource and other constraints, the realisation of human rights will always be a matter of political negotiation, and that a social commitment to equality demands that we ensure that only transparent, fully-informed and fully-participatory procedures, respectful of difference [are employed]. These principles should guide us when we have to make hard choices in the implementation of human rights.