Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 3 - The CRPD Committee, Ableism and Hierarchies of Impairment at Work

  • Paul David Harpur, University of Queensland
  • Book:
    Ableism at Work
    Published online:
    06 August 2020
    Print publication:
    19 December 2019, pp 38-53

  • Summary

    This chapter will introduce the CRPD Committee and analyse the extent to which the Committee has identified the presence of hierarchies at work. It will first introduce the CRPD Committee, then Sections II–IV will analyse its jurisprudence. Section II will analyse the Concluding Observations (COs) on States Parties to the CRPD to illustrate how the CRPD Committee accepts that there is a hierarchy of impairments in law and practice and that is having a tangible impact upon how the right to work is exercised by different impairment groups. While the CRPD Committee’s critique of the hierarchy of impairments at work is positive, there are substantial inconsistencies across COs. The CRPD Committee aims to have ability equality mainstreamed, and disability apartheid abolished; to advance this agenda, the CRPD Committee should ensure consistency across COs to empower those on the right side of the disability debate.