Part I The concepts: The human rights framing of disability One way that the human rights model of disability advances the social model is to place a spotlight on fundamental considerations like personhood. It is commonly said that persons with disabilities were, in the past – and to a large extent, today – treated as ‘objects’ and not as ‘subjects’ possessing equal rights. A profound effect of this has been the extent to which the very personhood of persons with disabilities was denied: their right to take charge of their own lives, to remain in charge of their own lives and to have their own wishes and preferences respected by others. This ‘civil death’ – for example, through the transfer of the rights of personhood to a third party, such as a guardian – is not something that is unique to persons with disabilities. People who were enslaved and indeed many married women throughout history have suffered ‘civil death’.69 Restoring personhood to persons with disabilities, especially those with mental or intellectual disabilities, has become a litmus test of the move to the human rights model of disability. The UN CRPD, like all human rights treaties, allows for States to make ‘reservations’ providing those reservations do not frustrate the object and purpose of the treaty. Ending ‘civil death’ (guardianship regimes) and restoring civil life (through supported decision-making regimes) is seen by most as being so important as to form one of the essential objects and purposes of the Convention. Another result of this ‘civil death’ is that many persons with disabilities have been denied their right to live the way they want to live, where they want to live and with whom they want to live. Of course, none of us has a human right to live in a salubrious neighbourhood. Resource constrains dictate otherwise. Yet, even given these ‘natural’ constraints, most people choose their own homes and living conditions. This is important not merely because our home both protects and projects our identity, it is important because our homes connect us to the community. The denial of the right to live independently and be included in the community violates the autonomy rights of persons with disabilities and strips them of the possibility of growing with others in the community. It is widely understood that the right to legal capacity – that is, to make decisions for oneself – and the right to live independently and be included in the community highlight the paradigm shift in the Convention. In contrast to the medical model of disability, these principles support an unmasking of the person behind the disability, a refusal to allow the person to be defined by the disability, a restoration of power to the person over their own lives and, at its most basic, a right to choose where to live and with whom, according to one’s own preferences. That is why, for example, the UN CRPD places so much emphasis on the right to recognition before the law (article 12) and the right to live independently and be included in the community (article 19). The former right restores decision-making power and autonomy to persons with disabilities. It affords them the right to make decisions that suit their own wishes and preferences – a right not to be infantilised throughout their lives. Crucially, the exercise of this right depends on access to a range of supports, most of which occur naturally in the community and which most people take for granted. The latter right restores decision-making power over where to live and with whom. Furthermore, it envisages people with disabilities living in the community, with choices and services equal to others. The concept of ‘voice’ has a collective dimension as well as an individual one. From one perspective, the big ‘problem’ in the field of disability is the cumulative impact of ‘bad’ legislation or practice. However, from a process-based perspective, the ‘big’ problem is the almost complete absence of people with disabilities and their representative organisations in the process of change. The concept of voice applies not only in relation to decision making on personal matters, it also has a group or collective component. Making sure that the collective voice of persons with disabilities are represented and heard is no guarantee that they will be followed. However, it does mean that their perspective cannot be ignored as was largely the case in the past. 69 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the First: The Rights of Persons; available at http://avalon.law.yale. edu/subject_menus/blackstone.asp. Chapter 2: Key elements of the human rights frame on disability | 25