Human Rights and Disability A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions A second point of distinction is the broader scope of the human rights model, which extends beyond traditional anti-discrimination law. Degener notes that “while the social model approach to disability policy supports anti-discrimination policy and civil rights reforms, the human rights model is more comprehensive in that it encompasses both sets of rights; civil and political, as well as economic, social and cultural rights”.24 This point is particularly relevant when it comes to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities because, as the Introduction to this Manual explains, the human rights model enabled the Convention drafters to go beyond the traditional scope of anti-discrimination law to focus on the personhood of persons with disabilities, including their full legal capacity to make decisions. This approach also enabled them to bring together economic, social and cultural rights with civil and political rights. A third point of distinction involves an honest acknowledgement of the difference – and sometimes the pain – associated with impairment. The social model, on one reading, does not give sufficient attention to the reality of this difference. The human rights model, according to Degener, “acknowledges these life circumstances and demands them to be considered when social justice theories are developed”.25 In other words, disability is not purely a social construction. It is real and it requires us to face it and respond positively. A fourth point of distinction is that there is greater scope within the human rights model to acknowledge multiple identities and the importance of identity. The point Degener makes is that traditional human rights law has within it the capacity to move beyond an identity-specific focus – for example, women, race or disability – and that this capacity is underlined by several provisions in the UN CRPD that acknowledge overlapping and intersecting identities, especially in relation to women with disabilities and children with disabilities. A fifth point of distinction is that while prevention is not encompassed within the social model, it can be part of a human rights approach – albeit under certain limited circumstances. According to Degener, the focus of the social model was not on people with disabilities but on how they were treated by others. However, to her at least, public health preventive strategies can be encompassed within a human rights frame, provided that they do not stray into eugenics or worse. Finally, the sixth point of distinction is that while the “social model of disability can explain why two thirds of the one billion disabled persons in the world live in poverty, the human rights model offers a roadmap for change”.26 This highlights a key success of the UN CRPD. It seeks to put in place the necessary social and economic supports that can enable persons with disabilities to take charge of their own lives and assist them out of poverty. These distinctions are worth bearing in mind. An important lesson that can be derived from Degener’s analysis is that while the human rights model of disability builds on the social model, it also complements it in two important ways: first, by providing a normative basis on which to judge the status of persons with disabilities and, even more importantly, to drive a process of reform and change. Advocacy movements around the world have been highly successful over the past 30 years in changing the narrative on disability. We have moved decisively away from the medical model, to the social model, and now to the human rights model, with its emphasis on change.27 This advocacy was sparked by the advent of the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1960s, especially the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It led to a parallel re-framing of disability issues as civil rights issues in the disability community and a demand for legislation equivalent to the Civil Rights Act. A series of disconnected pieces of legislation were adopted in the 1970s and 1980s before culminating in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The passage of this legislation brought worldwide attention and guided 12 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 See, for example, National Council on Disability, Righting the Americans with Disabilities Act, December 2004.