Submission CRPD_A

To: Secretariat of CRPD
UNITED NATIONS
COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
UNOG-OHCHR
CH-1211 Geneva 10 (Switzerland)
Electronic Submission:
Surface Mail:
[email protected] (DOC & PDF Files)
10 Hardcopies (Deadline 15.03.2013)
SEX-WORKER FORUM OF VIENNA, AUSTRIA
Austria: Denial of Sexual Autonomy to Persons with Disabilities
Information from Sex-Worker Forum of Vienna, Austria, to the
United Nations Committee on the Rights Of Persons with Disabilities
for the examination of the State Party Report of Austria at the 9th
Session in April 2013
Vienna, at 08.03.2013
Eingabe von Sexworker Forum an den Ausschuss für
Behindertenrechte der Vereinten Nationen zum Bericht Österreichs
bei der 9. Session im April 2013
Sex-Worker Forum of Vienna, Shadow Report
Austria: Denial of Sexual Autonomy to Persons with Disabilities
GERMAN ABSTRACT
BERICHT VON SEXWORKER-FORUM AN UN´CRPD
Sexuelle Autonomie ist das Recht, vor ungewollter Sexualität
geschützt zu werden und in der Ausübung einvernehmlicher
Sexualität nicht staatlich behindert zu werden. Sexuelle Autonomie ist
Teil der individuellen Autonomie, die CRPD unter Artikel 3 schützt
und durch die Freiheit zu eigenen Entscheidungen definiert. In
Österreich wird Behinderten dieses Recht in mehrfacher Hinsicht
verwehrt.
•
•
•
In Österreich gibt es zwar besonderen strafrechtlichen Schutz
gegen Übergriffe, doch der faktische Schutz ist schwach: Wie z.B.
2010 der UN Fachausschuss gegen Folter kritisiert hat, wurden
behinderte Personen in Heimen in Netzbetten gefangen gehalten,
hilflos jeglichen Übergriffen ausgesetzt. Artikel 15, 16 und 17
CRPD schützen vor solcher erniedrigender Behandlung und
wurden daher verletzt. Dennoch hat Österreich bis jetzt nicht die
Schuldigen dieser Behandlung ausgeforscht und bestraft.
Umgekehrt wird behinderten Personen die Entwicklung eines
eigenen Sexuallebens nicht immer zugestanden. Prinzipiell
können Behinderte ihr Sexualleben auch mit Sexarbeitern
entwickeln, da Prostitution in Österreich legal ist. Der Zugang zu
solchen Dienstleistungen ist aber für Behinderte unangemessen
restriktiv: Manche Behinderte können z.B. nicht über ihr
Vermögen verfügen, sondern benötigen die Zustimmung eines
Sachwalters, wenn sie solche Leistungen mit ihrem eigenen Geld
•
in Anspruch nehmen wollen. Wenn er dies für unmoralisch hält,
verwehrt er die Ausgabe. Immobile Behinderte können sich auch
nicht von Dienstleistern in ihrer Wohnung besuchen lassen, wenn
Gesetze Prostitution nur in Bordellen erlauben. Wo Behinderte in
Heimen leben, verwehrt die Heimleitung Dienstleistern aus
moralischen Gründen den Zutritt. Artikel 22 CRPD garantiert ein
von staatlichen Eingriffen freies Sexualleben und Artikel 30
garantiert auch Behinderten ungehinderten Zugang zu
Sexualdienstleistern. Beide Rechte werden in Österreich faktisch
verletzt.
Behinderte werden auch von den Behörden daran gehindert,
beruflich als Sexualdienstleister tätig zu werden. Ausdrücklich
verboten wird dies z.B. in Oberösterreich für Behinderte, die unter
Sachwalterschaft stehen, obwohl Prostitution in Österreich als
Beruf anerkannt ist. Artikel 27 CRPD verbietet es, Behinderten
den selbstgewählten Zugang zur von ihnen gewünschten
Berufsausübung aus unsachlichen Gründen zu verwehren.
Auch das Diskriminierungsverbot Artikel 4, 5 und 6 CRPD wird
aufgrund solcher Vorkommnisse in Österreich verletzt.
Sexworker-Forum ist ein internationaler Verein mit Sitz und
Registrierung in Wien, der sich für die Achtung der Menschenrechte
der erwachsenen Frauen, Männer und transsexuellen Personen im
Umfeld der freiwilligen und selbstbestimmten Sexarbeit einsetzt.
2 of 7
Sex-Worker Forum of Vienna, Shadow Report
Austria: Denial of Sexual Autonomy to Persons with Disabilities
Submission from
Sex-Worker Forum of Vienna
to the United Nations’
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
pertaining to Austria’s initial report
at the 9th session, April 2013
EXECUTIVE ABSTRACT
Austria lacks awareness for the sexual rights of persons with
disabilities. Their sexual autonomy and self-determination is protected
under Articles 16, 17, 22 against violence, by Articles 22 and 30
against unreasonable restrictions and social exclusion, by Articles 4
and 27 against restrictions in their occupational choices. Austria
violates these provisions:
INHALT
•
Persons with disabilities are not sufficiently protected against
violence and degrading treatment.
German Abstract .................................................................................. 2
•
In several provinces, persons with disabilities are hindered in
developing their sexual self with the assistance of sexual
assistants. Instead, they may be pressured to ask the services of
illegal prostitutes, whereby they risk administrative fines.
•
Persons under guardianship are hindered in freely deciding about
their sexual life, even if they have the mental capacity to do so.
Instead, guardians impose their own moral values upon them.
•
Persons under guardianship are restricted in their occupational
decisions: Some provinces do not accept their registration for legal
sex work. However, if they work without registration, they face
fines.
Executive Abstract ............................................................................... 3
1. Author .......................................................................................... 4
2. Sexual Autonomy as a Human Right under this Convention ...... 4
3. Ineffective Protection against Abuse ........................................... 5
4. Unreasonable Restriction on Developing Sexual Life ................. 6
5. Discrimination in Occupational Choices ..................................... 7
6. Conclusion and Recommendation ............................................... 7
3 of 7
Sex-Worker Forum of Vienna, Shadow Report
Austria: Denial of Sexual Autonomy to Persons with Disabilities
Convention (CRPD) protects persons with disabilities against such
intrusions under Article 15 (freedom of torture), Article 16
(protection against violence), Article 17 (integrity) and Article 22
(privacy protection).
1. Author
Sex-Worker Forum is an international incorporated non-governmental
not-for-profit organization, chartered at Vienna under registration
number 699583522. The Forum works to protect and promote the
human rights of adult women, men and transgender persons in
voluntary sex work, considering also the rights of clients and the
rights of victims of sexual exploitation.
•
The other side of the coin is the right to experience ones wanted
sexuality. Respect for private life (e.g. Covenant of Civil and
Political Rights) requires states not to build up unreasonable
hindrances for individuals in developing sexual life. 3 Likewise,
under Article 22 (privacy protection) this Convention obliges
states not to suppress the sexual life of persons with disabilities.
•
Moreover, many persons with disabilities need enabling
conditions to develop their sexual life. Already Rule 9 of the
United Nations’ Standard Rules of 1993 on the Equalization of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities asks states to give
persons with disabilities the opportunity to develop sexual life. In
addition, under the Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights there arises a positive obligation of states to support
persons with disabilities in this respect under the right to full
participation in cultural and recreational life. 4 Likewise Articles
30 of this Convention require states to provide persons with
2. Sexual Autonomy as a Human Right under this Convention
Sexual self-determination is at the core of sexual autonomy: 1 “It
enshrines both the right to engage in wanted sexuality and the right to
be free and protected from unwanted sexuality, from sexual abuse and
sexual violence. Both sides of the coin have to be given due weight
and neither one neglected. Only then can human sexual dignity be
fully and comprehensively respected.”
•
One side of the coin is protection against forced intrusions into
sexual life by private actors (e.g. rape) or institutional/state actors
(e.g. forced sterilization). From the prohibition of torture and
private life protection (e.g. Covenant of Civil and Political Rights)
follow positive obligations of states to protect. 2 Likewise, this
1
Graupner, H. (2004). “Sexual Autonomy: A Human Rights Issue.” Keynote
lecture, 8th International Conference of the International Association for the
Treatment of Sex Offenders, Athens.
3
European Court of Human Rights, Dudgeon v United Kingdom of 22.10.1981;
United Nations Human Rights Committee, Toonen v Australia of 31.03.1994
2
4
European Court of Human Rights, X & Y v Netherlands of 26.03.1985 (rape of a
mentally handicapped girl).
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General
Comment 5 of 09.12.1994 at §§ 37 ff concerning Article 15 CESCR.
4 of 7
Sex-Worker Forum of Vienna, Shadow Report
Austria: Denial of Sexual Autonomy to Persons with Disabilities
cases to police, also for fear of secondary victimization. 5 Further,
Austrian courts interpret the Penal Code definitions of sexual
crimes restrictively, whence e.g. degrading humiliations that reach
into the sexual sphere may not be penalized.
disabilities with a supportive framework in developing their
sexual life, as does Article 4.
•
•
The author acknowledges that for persons incapable of exercising
sexual autonomy special measures are to be taken to protect their
rights and interests. However, persons with disabilities should be
protected from paternalistic approaches, which restrict their
autonomy despite their capability of exercising it. Such intrusions
would be discriminatory and Article 4 of this Convention prohibits
such discrimination.
•
A related problem is the use of net beds in social welfare
establishments that restrain persons with disabilities and make
them vulnerable to abuse by third persons. In 2010, United
Nations Committee against Torture requested Austria to end this
degrading practice. 6 However, the State Party lacks vigilance in
resolving this issue: Up to now Austria did not start criminal
investigations to penalize those that are responsible for this
degrading treatment of persons with disabilities. Neither did
victims receive fair compensation.
•
These issues are part of the general concern of insufficient legal
protection against torture: Austria ought to incorporate into
criminal law the crime of torture. Drafts of section 312a Penal
Code are under discussion, but have not been implemented.
Further, Austria needs to accept the international consensus that
sexual violence is torture, which the current drafts do not consider.
This applies also for the access of women with disabilities to enter
sex work. Articles 7 and 27 ask the State Party to respect such
decisions of women.
3. Ineffective Protection against Abuse
The author acknowledges that the State Party has special provisions to
protect persons with disabilities against rape and other abuse (sections
92, 107b, and 205 Penal Code). However, this legal protection is
insufficient, considering the vulnerability of persons with disabilities.
A key concern is lacking precaution in social welfare establishments
to protect human rights.
•
Amongst the deficiencies is insufficient factual protection against
rape. Owing to a 83% rape attrition rate (i.e. courts sentenced only
17% of those rapists, whom victims reported to police, although
false reporting is not a problem), most victims do not even report
5
Seith/Lovett/Kelley, Different systems, similar outcomes. Tracking attrition in
reported rape cases in eleven countries, London, 2009.
6
United Nations Committee against Torture, CAT/C/AUT/CO/4-5 of 20.04.2010 at
§ 25.
5 of 7
Sex-Worker Forum of Vienna, Shadow Report
Austria: Denial of Sexual Autonomy to Persons with Disabilities
4. Unreasonable Restrictions on Developing Sexual Life
•
Other provinces confine sex work to licensed brothels, but
issued licenses (Carinthia, Salzburg, Styria, Tyrol, and Upper
Austria). For instance, Tyrol prohibits all forms of sex work
outside of licensed brothels. Thereby for immobile persons
with disabilities it may be a problem to organize a transport to
a brothel; in any case their sexual life would become known to
the public. If instead they request the services of sex workers,
who visit them in their homes, then both the sex worker and
the client risk fines for illegal prostitution (Administrative
Penal Act).
•
Even if prostitution laws permit sex workers to visit persons with
disabilities at their homes, there may be barriers: Many persons
with disabilities live in social welfare establishments, where staff
denies sex workers entrance. Further, where staff allows sex
workers to enter, there may be insufficient privacy.
•
A specific problem arises for persons with disabilities, who are
under guardianship. Although they may have problems in
organizing their finances, they may very well have the capacity to
make their own decisions about their sexual life. However, their
guardians may deny them access to their own money for the
purchase of sexual services. Some guardians thereby impose their
own moral convictions upon their wards. Others do this for
defensive reasons, as they fear criticism, if they approve such
sexual conduct. This problem is further aggravated by issues of
sexual orientation.
The author acknowledges that the State Party report shows awareness
of the issue of “enabling sexuality” (see § 102). However, prostitution
laws form legal barriers that hinder persons with disabilities in
actually developing a sexual life with the help of sex workers (sexual
assistants).
In Austria, sex work is legal. Since a judgment by the European Court
of Justice, sex work is accepted as labor. 7 The national statistics office
classifies it as “other occupations in the field of service provision to
persons”. Therefore, in principle persons with disabilities have access
to commercial sexual services. However, prostitution laws of Austrian
provinces restricted the provision of sexual services, but did not
consider the specific needs of persons with disabilities.
•
7
Such laws in particular ignore the needs of persons with
disabilities, whose social contacts are restricted (e.g. due to
immobility) and who therefore cannot develop their sexual self
without the aid of sexual assistants. In Vorarlberg, sex work is de
facto prohibited: The province restricted sex work to licensed
brothels and municipalities prevented the issue of licenses.
Therefore, de facto persons with disabilities are denied the right to
fully experience their sexuality.
See the case of Jany et al v Justitie, C-268/99 of 20.11.2001.
6 of 7
Sex-Worker Forum of Vienna, Shadow Report
Austria: Denial of Sexual Autonomy to Persons with Disabilities
considering their deprivation, measures to ensure access to the
services of sexual assistants should be considered.
5. Discriminations in Occupational Choices
Under the pretense to protect them, the State Party issued legal
regulations that unnecessarily restrict the professional opportunities of
persons with disabilities.
•
Approved by Sex-Worker Forum of Vienna
A specific instance of this issue is illustrated by the prostitution
law of Upper Austria. In order to work legally, sex workers need
to register. However, this law prohibits registration of persons
with disabilities for sex work, if they are under guardianship. This
regulation ignores that persons under guardianship may very well
have the mental capacity to make decisions about their sexual life.
(This would have to be decided on a case to case basis.) Yet, if
these persons nevertheless practice sex work, they are fined under
the Administrative Penal Act.
Christian Knappik, executive manager, Sex-Worker Forum
Verein: Sexworker Forum, ZVR-Zahl 699583522, Pannaschgasse 57/14, A-1050 Wien, Austria
Aoife Nic Seáin O’Neill, public relations officer, Sex-Worker Forum
Contact: [email protected]
6. Conclusion and Recommendation
Austria needs to be more vigilant about potential threats to the dignity
of persons with disabilities. As this submission illustrated for the issue
of their sexual autonomy, also legal regulations that do not directly
address persons with disabilities, such as prostitution laws, may have
negative repercussions for them.
•
Therefore, Austria should revise all laws and regulations under the
perspective of the United Nations Human Rights Based Approach.
•
Further, Austria should consider proactive measures to enhance
the sexual autonomy of persons with disabilities. In particular,
© Sexworker Forum, Wien 2012
7 of 7