In recent years, the enforcement of Canadian human rights statutes has been the subject of much criticism. That criticism comes not only from organizations that are required to change their practices to comply with the statutes, but from advocates who question the effectiveness of human rights enforcement. Studies which attempt to address these criticisms generally review the criticisms and then seek to modify the enforcement models to ameliorate the problems which have generated the criticism. This thesis considers the problem from a more theoretical perspective. With a focus on disability, this thesis considers whether Canadian anti-discrimination statutes, which were created when the prevailing theory of equality was a formal one, are capable of achieving substantive equality as it is now conceived. Applying a disability rights perspective, substantive equality for people with disabilities requires that a wide and complex variety of barriers be removed. These barriers may result from intended or unintended discrimination. They may be physical or attitudinal. They may be isolated, individual acts or they may reflect widespread societal norms. To eliminate such an array of barriers, anti-discrimination statutes must include a range of powers and procedures: they must incorporate provisions that protect people with disabilities from such barriers; they must provide mechanisms to identify the barriers; there must be mechanisms to determine whether the barriers contravene the protected right; and the statutes must provide effective remedies. This thesis concludes that contemporary human rights enforcement models are capable of effectively addressing many individual barriers to equality for people with disabilities. However, under a complaint-based model, human rights agencies cannot effectively address barriers that result from the operation of widespread norms. Canadian human rights agencies are therefore limited in their ability to achieve the societal transformation that is necessary to achieve substantive equality for people with disabilities. For such equality to be realized, anti-discrimination statutes must be seen as just one facet of a much broader approach. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

Disability rights laws in the United States have been designed to promote integration through a “mainstreaming” model—integrating disabled people into mainstream society. In contrast, this dissertation documents and analyzes the emergence of a different integration model—inverse integration—which involves situations in which nondisabled people enter disability-focused settings or participate in disability-focused activities. As this dissertation demonstrates, inverse integration is surprisingly popular. For example, in contemporary U.S. society, nondisabled students study in “special education” programs, nondisabled people reside in housing projects for disabled individuals, hearing actors perform in Deaf theatres, and nondisabled athletes compete in wheelchair sports. By looking outside the mainstream, this dissertation tests the normative underpinnings of conventional integration. For example, by analyzing the integration of nondisabled children into special education classrooms, the dissertation provides an explanation for why interactions between disabled and nondisabled students in schools have so far failed to shift attitudes toward disability. Similarly, by examining the reasons behind nondisabled people’s desire to play wheelchair basketball or learn sign language, it sheds new light on disability rights law’s limitations in promoting relationships. Finally, by pointing to the differing ways in which elite sports organizations treat athletes’ physical injuries, on one hand, and mental health issues, on the other, this dissertation exposes another angle of the stigma surrounding mental health in the mainstream discourse. In terms of methodology, this dissertation has taken a socio-legal approach, using empirical and theoretical work in the areas of sociology, anthropology, history, and social psychology. In one chapter, I conducted an empirical study (systematic content analysis) of legal decisions. Influenced by disability studies, this dissertation has also drawn upon the personal experiences of disabled people and references memoirs of disabled athletes, scholars, and activists, as well as personal narratives featured in blog posts, op-eds, and legal scholarship. The dissertation is divided into three chapters. The first chapter, Reversing Reverse Mainstreaming, documents and criticizes the practice of “reverse mainstreaming,” whereby nondisabled children are integrated into classes for disabled students. Using a historical account and systematic analysis of hundreds of administrative decisions, this chapter describes the circumstances that gave rise to reverse mainstreaming and analyzes the practice’s normative underpinnings. In doing so, this chapter exposes a conundrum: On one hand, educators and judges have long justified reverse mainstreaming by pointing to its potential to reduce prejudice through structured interactions between disabled and nondisabled students. On the other hand, reverse mainstreaming often treats disabled students as inferior to their nondisabled peers and imposes mainstream norms at the expense of disability culture. Thus, rather than reducing prejudice, such structured interactions may perpetuate the very stigma and misconceptions they are designed to eradicate. Moreover, as this chapter details, reverse mainstreaming can lead to distributional inequality when it comes to scarce resources. Combining insights from social psychology and disability studies, this chapter proposes guidelines for legal and policy reform aimed at ensuring that intergroup interactions in educational settings take more egalitarian forms. The second chapter, Inverse Integration and the Relational Deficit of Disability Rights Law, takes a broader perspective. It develops a typology of inverse integration practices and analyzes the interaction of such practices with existing U.S. disability law. It shows that legal and social norms generally hinder the involvement of nondisabled people in disabled spaces or activities. Against this backdrop, the seeming popularity of inverse integration is a puzzle. What is driving this practice? The answer has to do with relationships. Combining insights from sociology, anthropology, social psychology, disability studies, and law, this chapter demonstrates how inverse integration allows disabled and nondisabled people to share experiences, interests, and common language with family members, friends, and intimate partners. These interactive features of inverse integration stand in stark contrast to disability rights laws’ general failure to protect, facilitate, and reinforce interpersonal relationships. In a society where in-person interactions are becoming less and less common, these relational advantages of inverse integration seem particularly exigent. Drawing upon instances of inverse integration, this chapter imagines what a more relational disability rights regime would look like and proposes specific interventions. The third chapter, Gambling on disability Rights, identifies a barrier for inclusion of disabled athletes in elite sports: the regulation of sports betting. It argues that recently adopted rules of elite sports organizations, which ban the disclosure of material information that might be used for betting (“anti-tipping rules”), have a detrimental effect on athletes with psychosocial impairments (e.g., general anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder). Because psychosocial impairments may significantly affect the ability of athletes to perform at the highest levels, anti-tipping rules prohibit athletes from disclosing their impairments. This forced secrecy, in turn, may adversely affect athletes’ mental health and might prevent them from claiming protections to which they are entitled under disability rights laws. Perhaps most importantly, given that athletes are public figures who serve as role models for many, these rules might perpetuate the stigma surrounding mental health in society at large. The chapter proposes strategies to resolve this problem by drawing on the rule against insider trading in securities law.

Thesis (MSc (Interdisciplinary Health Sciences. Speech-Language and Hearing Therapy. Centre for Rehabilitation Studies))--Stellenbosch University, 2008. / Purpose To date no health policy analysis tool has been developed to analyse access and equity for people with disabilities. Further, there is very little information available on health and disability policy implementation. The intention of this research is to develop a health policy framework to analyse access and equity, focussing on people with disabilities, that can be used by policy makers. This research analyses four health policies and focuses on the facilitators and the implementation barriers. The findings of this research will impact on new policies developed in the future. Method The study included both a desk - top review and a descriptive study. The desk - top review entailed the formulation of a disability - focussed framework for health policy. This was then used to analyse health policies in terms of their disability inclusiveness. Qualitative data was gathered from interviews and questionnaires and focussed on policy processes and implementation. This was incorporated into the analysis. An ideal seven - step policy process model was developed. This was used to compare the reported policy process with the four policies followed. The four health policies used in the research are: the Primary Health Care Policy, the National Rehabilitation Policy, the Provision of Assistive Devices Guidelines and the Free Health Care Policy. Four key informants with extensive experience and knowledge were interviewed on policy processes and implementation. Questionnaires were also sent to Provincial Rehabilitation Managers to obtain their viewpoints on barriers and facilitators to policy implementation. Results Analysis of the four health policies showed varying levels of access and equity features. In terms of policy processes: all four policies had different stakeholders who initiated the policy development process. Two of the policies viz. the National Rehabilitation Policy and the Provision of Assistive Devices Guidelines, had people with disabilities as part of the stakeholder group involved in the policy formulation. The National Rehabilitation Policy had a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation section whereas this was absent in the other three policies. From the information gained from interviews and questionnaires, it appeared that the barriers to policy implementation included: attitudes, environmental access, human and financial resources. Facilitators to policy implementation include: policy process and design, availability of human and financial resources, support systems, management support, organisational structures and finally positive attitudes that all impacted favourably on policy implementation. Conclusions The developed health policy analysis framework served its purpose. Most policies did not have monitoring and evaluation guidelines that make implementation difficult to assess. Recommendations are made to improve policy design and content, specifically related to access and equity. Intersectoral collaboration and disability coordination needs to be improved. People with disabilities also need to engage with government departments, to monitor implemented policies and to advocate for change from outside the health system.