PART SIX: PROMOTING DIVERSITY AND EQUALITY: OBLIGATIONS TO ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSES OF DISCRIMINATION The Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities has additionally noted that – for example, in the context of medical and scientific practice – States should “actively involve and consult with persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in all decision-making processes … concerning them, including law reform, policy development and research”.1248 TACKLING ABLEISM In a recent report on the topic of ableism, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities underlines the importance of recognizing and exposing this phenomenon in addressing the root causes of discrimination: 9. Despite the significant advances in the recognition of the rights of persons with disabilities at international and national levels, the deeply rooted negative perceptions about the value of their lives continue to be a prevalent obstacle in all societies. Those perceptions are engrained in what is known as ableism; a value system that considers certain typical characteristics of body and mind as essential for living a life of value. Based on strict standards of appearance, functioning and behaviour, ableist ways of thinking consider the disability experience as a misfortune that leads to suffering and disadvantage and invariably devalues human life. As a result, it is generally assumed that the quality of life of persons with disabilities is very low, that they have no future to look forward to and that they will never live happy and fulfilling lives. 10. Ableism leads to social prejudice, discrimination against and oppression of persons with disabilities, as it informs legislation, policies and practices. Ableist assumptions lie at the root of discriminatory practices, such as the sterilization of girls and women with disabilities (see A/72/133), the segregation, institutionalization and deprivation of liberty of persons with disabilities in disability-specific facilities and the use of coercion on the basis of “need of treatment” or “risk to self or to others” …. … PART SIX 15. Over the last 50 years, the disability rights movement has been challenging these deeply rooted negative perceptions, stating that the real problem is the failure of society to eliminate barriers, provide the required support and embrace the disability experience as part of human diversity. However, the claims of persons with disabilities to have their rights recognized are often dismissed and the underlying power imbalance invalidates their lived experiences. Their narratives are considered to be subjective and ill-suited to informing objective decision-making and thus are not given the space to be genuinely weighed or to challenge ableism. Access to the platforms on which discussions are taking place is limited, rendering the disability movement unable to share information on an equal basis with others.1249 As these examples illustrate, States not only have obligations to ensure the right, without distinction, to “take part in the conduct of public affairs … to vote and to be elected … [and] to have access, on general terms of equality, to public service”, as stipulated in article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, they also have positive obligations to ensure equal representation of groups exposed to discrimination, both within the formal structures of politics and government, and to support representative civil society organizations. 1248 Ibid., para. 76 (g). 1249 Ibid., paras. 9–10 and 15 (footnote omitted). See also A/HRC/40/54; A/HRC/37/56; A/73/161; and A/70/297. 197