How to Seek Redress for Abuse & Prejudice:
The established, conventional practice (enshrined in most legally established processes) is to first attempt inform the perpetrator and request that they adjust their behaviour, or the conditions, which you can show are prejudiced, disadvantageous, or abusive of what are now your established Rights (in all circumstances). This, of course, includes physical, verbal, racial and all other forms of abuse. The Conventions on Human Rights recognise that there may be an imbalance, or an abuse of power in some circumstances. This first stage may not be realistically possible. It is reasonable to use an intermediary in these cases, or where the abuse is serious, refer incidents to the police, courts and other appropriate 'protection' agencies.. The next stage is to approach the next most appropriate and more senior individual in Authority. This may be a Line Manager, a Teacher, or Head Teacher, the perpetrator's Manager / Supervisor, the Head of a Department, a Police Officer, the Chief Constable, Professional Body, MP, or Local Councillor, etc. It is not too critical, it is just necessary to try and identify the most appropriate person who has sufficient Civil Authority, who can consider and deal with the alleged failure of duty in respect of the Convention and associated Laws. They then have an obligation to advise and guide you to the appropriate process. You are at liberty, at this stage, to seek informal, or more formal support, of any kind, but you are not obliged to. If you do not get an appropriate consideration of the Human Rights, or Legal issue you have raised, you can seek to progress through to the next, or subsequent levels of civil 'Authority'. It is also possible to contact an appropriate agency, established for the purpose of considering 'failures of duty' of the kind you are raising. During this process, you may identify other failures of duty. Record these and inform of them at the next step you take. At these stages if is helpful to put the issues in writing. Any person in an appropriate civil, or professional Authority, is required to tell you, under their legal, professional, ethical and other institutional obligations, where to go and how to achieve the resolution of your complaint, or grievance. Professional's employed for the provision of all civic services are individually and collectively responsible for this. In circumstances of serious breaches of Human Rights, any failure to advise, or failure to take appropriate action to stop the prejudicial behaviour, conditions, or circumstances, is also a failure to adequately consider your established Human Rights. Failures of duty like this, are often compounded. Dignity and Least Restrictive Practice are key here. Even when following 'due legal process' and taking account of a Professional's 'special legal powers', the obligation is to maintain a person's Dignity, use minimum force necessary and the least restrictive options in curtailing individual freedom & liberty. Any 'allowed' restrictions on individual freedom have to be shown to have been necessary to achieve a legal purpose and have to have shown to have justifiable cause, which can be 'evidenced'. All Human Rights, other than those affected by these special legal powers, have to be maintained in full, at least until a formal conviction. Some established justifications for physical restraint and restriction of individual freedom, if they are not consistent with the evidence, or can be shown to be not in keeping with 'less restrictive' actions (i.e. demonstrated in another case to be more effective); can be challenged, given the requirement for Rights & Entitlements to be 'Equitable' for all, within a State. These basic Human Rights are simple to understand; in being what we want for ourselves. They are 'Absolute'; in that they are apply to all and persons. They are 'Relative'; in that the legal and civil standards of any State to which they apply, must be applied, without prejudice, or favour, to all people within that State. Where an improved standard of duty of care, or legal process, is shown as appropriate & applicable to one person (through this demonstration), it is applicable to another, given similar needs & risks. The 'Convention on Persons with Disabilities', interpreted in the context of the 'Convention on Human Rights', makes this very clear. It is also a logical and ethical conclusion of these Principles of all the UN & EC Conventions: Article 1:
The purpose of the present Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.
Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. | NOTE: This Document is still at some stage of development. You are invited to respond and comment on its content and its logic. If you return to the document at a future date, you will be able to see its continued development, hopefully reflecting your own and others commentary. I thank you, in advance, for any contribution that you make. Please also feel free to visit and contribute, in any valid way, to these and other social issues, through our Forums. There is also a Chat Room and protected Chat Space for more serious group discussions and individual counselling. Please feel free o use this space for your legitimate activities. Copyright: Although you will see very few reference to other formal writings in this document, I acknowledge general recognition to the discussions and debates that I have had with students, practitioners and clients over the years. Most of the ideas and theory has evolved through this rather pragmatic process (operational research), rather than any formal reading. If any content of this document describes concepts, theory, or ideas that have been established else where, (prior to my writing, either here or else where - in part or in full), I acknowledge their entitlement to claim them as their intellectual property for financial purposes, if they can evidence this. I also reserve the right to retain them as my intellectual property, with due recognition to those who have made direct contributions, including other writers, should I identify such a past influences. Other than this, I invite you to share and copy any content, to the benefit of intellectual debate and the benefit of individuals and groups, without restriction, other than it be used for constructive purpose, in the wider context of my writing. Should you wish to use any material presented here 'as is', I ask that you then make reference to myself and the web site. The 'Reading Date' would be a useful 'publishing date' for the Current Edition. 1980 is the core publishing date for most of the basic ideas and theory (unless stated otherwise). This 'Reading Date' may be an important part of this 'reference', as the document (by its 'internet fluid' nature) will be constantly changing and this may affect meaning and interpretation, for those following up on such a reference at a later date. Thank you for your cooperation. TRC. eMail: terry.couchman@visitweb.org |
