Tuesday, August 6, 2019

An IFA report on the OEWG 2019

The UN OEWG on Aging (OEWG) has been working since 2011.
Recently, the IFA - International Federation on Aging has published an excellent report summarizing the history of the OEWG as well as its achievements thus far.
In its conclusion, the report states the following:

"Protecting the rights of older people enables them to live secure, dignified lives with the ability to participate in that which they value. This report outlines the important steps that the UN and others have taken to establish the OEWGA, while also emphasizing that there is much more work to be done. Despite the existence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, older people are not legally recognized under international human rights laws. The next crucial step the IFA and partners must take is to advocate for a UN Convention on the rights of older people amongst member states who lack knowledge or awareness on the importance of older people to society. Leading up and during to the IFA 15th Global Conference on Ageing "Rights Matter", the work of the OEWGA will be used to mobilize enthusiasm in a targeted and strategic way to raise the voices of older people and urge countries who are "on the edge" of supporting a Convention on the Rights of Older People."

See full report:

Monday, February 4, 2019

The Right to Education and Lifelong Learning


Joint submission by AGE Platform Europe, HelpAge International, The Law in the Service of the Elderly and the National Association of Community Legal Centres Australia.[1]

Open-ended Working Group on Ageing, 10th Working Session, 15-18 April 2019

Education, training, lifelong learning, and capacity building

Authors
This joint submission is authored by Robin Allen (Cloisters), Andrew Byrnes (Australian Human Rights Institute, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales), Israel (Issi) Doron (University of Haifa), Nena Georgantzi (AGE Platform Europe / National University of Ireland Galway), Bill Mitchell (National Association of Community Legal Centres, Australia) and Bridget Sleap (HelpAge International). Our views do not necessarily reflect the broad and consensual positions of the organisations we represent, which will be submitted separately.

Context of Response
This response addresses the guiding questions from a global perspective. It summarises a more comprehensive statement which will be provided to the 10th working session.

Question 1: International legal framework
Despite provisions on the right to education,[2] there are unique disadvantages and aspects of the right in older age which are not adequately provided for in existing human rights law.

International human rights standards are needed on older persons’ right to lifelong learning and education on an equal basis with others and without discrimination, so they can live autonomous and independent lives, fulfil their aspirations, build their skills and capacities, develop their full human potential and sense of dignity and self-worth, and participate fully in society.

Scope of the right
·       The right shall cover all forms of learning and education, including but not limited to tertiary education, vocational training and retraining, digital education, adult education, informal, recreational and community-based education, lifelong learning programs, and skills training in literacy, numeracy and technological competencies.

Non-discrimination and equality
·       Older people have the right to equal access to opportunities for all forms learning and levels of education without discrimination based on age or any other factor.
·       Older people have the right to equal access to digital learning and education platforms without discrimination based on age.
·       States shall take steps to eliminate negative ageist stereotypes and prejudices about older people’s ability to learn.
·       Older people have the right to the same opportunities as others to benefit from scholarships and other educational or study grants.
·       Older people have the right to participate in the decision-making processes regarding the shape and content of learning and educational programs aimed at older adults.
·       Older people have the right to participate as teachers and sources of knowledge and wisdom in learning and educational programs for all generations.

Accessibility
·       Older people have the right to affordable lifelong learning and education opportunities that fit their needs, preferences, skills, motivations, and diverse identities.
·       Older people have the right to lifelong learning and education opportunities in settings that are accessible to them including in their communities and in care and support settings. 

Availability
·       Older people have the right to equal access to opportunities of lifelong learning and education available to the general public and to learning opportunities adapted to their specific needs, skills, motivations, preferences and diverse identities.

Acceptability
·       Older people have the right to appropriate and acceptable lifelong learning and education opportunities that fit their needs, preferences, skills, motivations, and diverse identities.
·       Older people have the right to learning and educational materials in an appropriate, accessible and acceptable format.

Remedies and redress
·       Safeguards must be in place to protect against breaches of the right to lifelong learning and education, including breaches of privacy and security of data on digital and online learning platforms.
·       Older people have the right to accessible legal information.
·       Older people have the right to accountability mechanisms that provide for remedies and redress when their rights are violated.

Question 2: Challenges in availability, accessibility and adaptability
Older persons face a range of challenges to the enjoyment of their right to education, including:
·       Lack of availability of learning opportunities adapted to the preferences and learning needs of older persons, for example prison rehabilitation programmes tend to cater for younger offenders in terms of skills training and education and release programmes may not address the resettlement challenges older prisoners may face.[3]
·       Information not available in formats accessible to older persons
·       Limited access to education, training and learning opportunities for older persons in care and support settings
·       Unequal access to digital education, including e-textbooks, mobile learning, online learning and technology-enhanced learning, due to interfaces that do not allow for difference in vision, hearing and dexterity, unaffordable technologies or lack of access to digital skills training[4]
·       Limited access to legal information and how to access legal and other complaint-making proceedings.[5]
·       Unaffordable cost of education, training or skills building courses and associated costs such as transport

Question 5: Equality and non-discrimination
Older persons experience ageism and age discrimination in relation to the right to education in different ways, for example:
·       Deeply entrenched ageist stereotypes that older persons need not, cannot, and do not wish to, learn
·       Age limits in education which are considered lawful under anti-age discrimination legislation[6]
·       Age limits for scholarships and other support instruments which exclude older persons.[7]
·       Unequal access of older workers to employment training and career development schemes[8]
·       Funding for further education which prioritises low-level skills and qualifications that are not appropriate for older persons who already have these but need to extend their skills to remain in employment.[9]
·       Invisibility and lack of voice in shaping and choosing the content of education and learning programs aimed at older adults.
·       Exclusion and discrimination based on old age in participating in the teaching and managing staff of educational and learning programs for older adults.




* For further information contact Bridget Sleap bsleap@helpage.org
[2] For example, UDHR Article 26, ICESCR Article 13, CEDAW Article 10, CRPD Article 24
[3] Sleap, Old age behind bars: how can prisons adapt to the needs of increasingly elderly populations? 2014, https://www.penalreform.org/blog/age-bars-prisons-adapt-increasingly-elderly-populations/
[4] Craig Mokhiber, Artificial Intolerance and Digital Dignity: Older Persons, Human Rights and New Technologies for Education, presentation at the International Expert-Conference on Human Rights of Older Persons, Vienna, 13th November 2018, http://www.ageing.at/en/downloads/downloads-day-2-en
[5] Edwards and Fontana, Legal Information Needs of Older People, Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales, 2004 http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/site/articleIDs/9D9D131462B745E0CA257060007D1408/$file/legal_info_needs_report.pdf
[6] https://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/age-discrimination-in-education.html
[8] Alexis Rinckenbach, Lifelong education and digital training for the elderly in France, presentation at the International Expert-Conference on Human Rights of Older Persons, Vienna, 13th November 2018, http://www.ageing.at/en/downloads/downloads-day-2-en

Friday, November 23, 2018

A new book on European Elder Law: "Ageing, Ageism, and the Law"

Until not many years ago, the field of law and aging was relatively neglected within European jurisprudence. 
This has changed dramatically in recent years.
However, much was left to be studied, at least in the field of ageism and European law.
A new and recent book in the field, edited by Prof. Israel Issi Doron, and Nena Georgantzi, presents a collection of articles in the field. The book was published by EE - Edward Elgar.
Here is a synopsis of the book:

Europe is ageing. However, in many European countries, and in almost all fields of life, older persons experience discrimination, social exclusion, and negative stereotypes that portray them as different or a burden to society. This pivotal book is the first of its kind, providing a rich and diverse analysis of the inter-relationships between ageing, ageism and law within Europe.

Throughout the book – which builds on a European Cooperation in Science & Technology (COST) action – leading scholars offer theoretical and empirical analysis in order to discern the role European law plays in perpetuating and combating ageism. Including specific examples of how stereotypes and prejudices influence and shape the European legal system, the book contributes to the broader current global social movement towards advancing a new international human rights convention for older persons.

Timely and engaging, this book will appeal to students and scholars of law, sociology, public policy and a wide range of related fields including gerontology, human rights, and health studies. Practitioners, policy-makers, civil society organizations and senior citizens activists will also benefit from the insights into the socio-legal aspects of social policies and human rights of older persons.




Monday, November 12, 2018

WHO - World Health Organization and the Combat on Ageism

There is a clear link between the human rights of older persons (or lack / infringements of these rights) and ageism - the social construction of old age.
In recent years there has been a growing awareness for the need to combat ageism as part of the battle to promote the human rights of older persons and their social status across cultures and countries.
One of the key players on the global level in this field is WHO - the World Health Organization.
In its web-site one can find wealth of information, data, and empowering kits to work "on the ground" to address not only ageism, but also self-ageism, which is the internalization of negative attitudes by older persons as part of self adoption of social expectations.
See the WHO web-site and the wealth of its materials:

Friday, October 12, 2018

Ageing Equal: A global awareness raising campaign against ageism

Here is a new press release about a new and important global human rights campaign:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) will celebrate its 70th anniversary this year. AGE Platform Europe, with partners active in the promotion of human rights, is seizing this momentum to launch a 70-day awareness campaign for “Ageing Equal”. Testimonies and research from around the world prove that ageism is the most widespread discrimination. As we are all getting older, ageism affects or will affect all of us. And yet: because it is often more socially accepted, ageism is one of the least known form of discrimination. Fighting ageism should be everyone’s concern: it is time to take action against it!

Stand up against ageism
Globally, the number of persons aged 80 years or over is projected to increase more than threefold between 2017 and 2050, rising from 137 million to 425 millioni. Ageist attitudes lead to the marginalisation, poverty and abuse of older persons and have negative impacts on their health and well-beingii. Research has shown that people with more negative age stereotypes live on average 7.5 years less than those with more positive attitudes to ageingiii.
Pervasive ageism is embedded in our cultures, institutions and policies. It prevents us from enjoying our human rights when we reach older age and from recognizing the harmful effects of discrimination in older age. For example, age limits that hamper the participation of older workers in trainings are still widespread today. For unemployed over 55, it is more likely that they will not be employed again. In some EU member states, older people above the age of 70 are denied the right to rent a car regardless of their driving abilities. If these discriminations were based on sex or race, we would find them unacceptable – why are they permitted on the ground of age?
70 days to learn and act
The momentum launched by the United Nations to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the UDHR is reminding us that human rights are rights that everyone enjoys,
AGE work is co-funded by the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of AGE Platform Europe and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission. regardless of age, gender, ethnicity or race, belief or religion, sexual orientation or property, etc. For 70 days, the “Ageing Equal” campaign will invite you to reflect on the prevalence and gravity of ageism and on the importance to stand
up for your rights no matter what age you are.

The campaign will kick-off on 1st October, the International Day of Older Persons,
and will culminate on 10th December, the International Human Rights Day. It will
be structured around 10 thematic weeks reflecting the diversity of experiences in
older age and the multiple discrimination experienced by different groups as
they grow older. The campaign will invite everyone to become vocal about this
unrecognised denial of human rights, and hopefully will draw a path to create a
society for all ages.

Useful resources
 Campaign blog: ageing-equal.org (live from 1st October 2018)
 Campaign communication toolkit: trello.com/b/q14dqegb
including a joint statement from Members of the European Parliament
Intergroup subgroup on Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations
that will be updated regularly as we receive more signatures from MEPs
 Campaign page on AGE website: bit.ly/AGE-AgeingEqual

Press contact
For any query or to organise an interview with AGE members or partners,
please contact: Estelle Huchet, estelle.huchet@age-platform.eu

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

International Rights of Older Persons: Ageism, Justice, and Social Policy

International Rights of Older Persons: Ageism, Justice, and Social Policy

BIFOCAL, Vol. 35 Issue: 2

by
About the author: Prof. Israel (Issi) Doron is the Head of the Department of Gerontology, University of Haifa, Israel. He is also a former “International Commissioner” of the ABA Commission of Law and Aging.
(Note: The pdf for the issue in which this article appears is available for download: BIFOCAL Vol. 35, Issue 2.)
Introduction 
Much has been said on the fact that we are living in the era of a demographic revolution: the revolution of ageing. The data and the implications on the dramatic change in the demographic composition of the human race are well-known, and have been reviewed in recent decades in innumerable articles, studies, and books. I would go so far as to say that there exists today a fairly broad consensus that one of the most important social policy issues that will engage the entire world in the 21st century is the issue of the ageing of society.
There are those who say that at issue is no less than a “social revolution,” and even if we do not agree with this term, it is undoubtedly a change in the human experience of a type that has never before been experienced in human history: There has never before been a time when a person could rise in the morning, go out into the public space, and every fourth person he or she meets in the street is above the age of 65. Looking inward, the central challenges in the domestic political sphere will therefore be connected to the various aspects of the ageing of the societies, and for the broad implications that this phenomenon will have on economics, health, and society.
This social demographic revolution has also legal implications. Elder law and the issues of rights of older persons have become key elements in legal reforms all over the world. New and novel pieces of legislation along new precedents and court-based (common-law) developments can be found almost in any country around the world. This is true not only on the national-law level but on the international-law level as well. As of today, one of the most important discussions at the international level is whether there is a need for a new human rights convention regarding the rights of older persons. I have written in the past on this issue (Doron & Apter, 2010, 2010a; Doron & Spanier, 2010; Doron, Brown, & Somers, 2013).
In this short article, which is based on my presentation, August 13, 2013, in New York as part of the fourth meeting of the UN Open Ended Working Group on Ageing, I argue that the need for such a convention rests, amongst other things, on the need for social justice for older persons around the world.
On Professor Nancy Fraser’s Model for Social Justice
My argument is based on a theoretical model of social justice. This model was presented by Professor Nancy Fraser of the New School for Social Research, New York, NY, in her article entitled, “From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a ‘Post-Socialist’ Age” (Fraser, 1995). It is a philosophical argument comprising four different parts, which I will briefly present below:
Injustice of Distribution vs. Injustice of Recognition 
In the first phase of the argument, Professor Fraser draws a distinction between two different kinds of social injustices: economic-distributive injustice and cognitive-cultural injustice. According to her, the distinction is based on the fact that:
The first is socioeconomic injustice, which is rooted in the political-economic structure of society. Examples include exploitation (having the fruits of one’s labour appropriated for the benefit of others); economic marginalization (being confined to undesirable or poorly paid work or being denied access to income-generating labour altogether); and deprivation (being denied an adequate material standard of living).
The second kind of injustice is cultural or symbolic. It is rooted in social patterns of representation, interpretation, and communication. Examples include cultural domination (being subjected to patterns of interpretation and communication that are associated with another culture and are alien and/or hostile to one’s own); nonrecognition (being rendered invisible via the authoritative representational, communicative, and interpretative practices of one’s culture); and disrespect (being routinely maligned or disparaged in stereotypic public cultural representations and/or in everyday life interactions).” (pp. 70-71).
Exploited Classes, Despised Classes and Bivalent Collectivities
After Professor Fraser presents both types of the different injustices, she then presents what is derived from them – in other words, a spectrum of various types of “collectives” or “classes.” On one end of this group spectrum are the exploited classes: “At this end let us posit an ideal-typical mode of collectivity whose existence is rooted wholly in the political economy. It will be differentiated as a collectivity, in other words, by virtue of the economic structure, as opposed to the cultural order, of society. Thus any structural injustices its members suffer will be traceable ultimately to the political economy.” (p. 75). In practice, the classic example of such an exploited “collective” is, of course, the “working class,” at least in its Marxist conceptualization.
On the other end of the collective spectrum, Professor Fraser describes the following group: “At this end we may posit an ideal-typical mode of collectivity that fits the recognition model of justice. A collectivity of this type is rooted wholly in culture, as opposed to in political economy. It only exists as a collectivity by virtue of the reigning social patterns of interpretation and evaluation, not by virtue of the division of labor. Thus, any structural injustices its members suffer will be traceable ultimately to the cultural-valuational structure.” (p. 76). In practice, a good example of such a decentralized collectivity is, for example, the group of homosexual people who, despite the fact that they are dispersed across all parts of the economic-standing class of capitalist society, still suffer from scorn and humiliation due to their sexual orientation.
Finally, in a range between the two edges of the spectrum, Professor Fraser presents the collectives that she calls “bivalent,” which suffer both from economic and cultural injustice. As she says: “When we consider collectivities located in the middle of the conceptual spectrum, we encounter hybrid modes that combine features of the exploited class with features of the despised sexuality. These collectivities are ‘bivalent.’ They are differentiated as collectivities by virtue of both the political-economic structure and the cultural-valuational structure of society.” (p. 78). According to Professor Fraser, belonging to a gender or racial group are examples of bivalent collectivities, in which both encompass dimensions of economic injustices alongside cultural and symbolic injustices.
Affirmative Remedy vs. Transformative Remedy
After presentations of the various types of injustices, and presenting the types of social collectives derived from them, Professor Fraser goes on to present the various types of “remedy,” which purport to provide a solution for the various social injustices. Similar to the previous phases, Professor Fraser draws a conceptual distinction between two different types of social policy whose purpose is to resolve or to remedy the injustice: affirmative remedy and transformative remedy. Or, in her words:
My aim is to distinguish two broad approaches to remedying injustice that cut across the redistribution–recognition divide. I shall call them ”affirmation” and ”transformation” respectively... By affirmative remedies for injustice, I mean remedies aimed at correcting inequitable outcomes of social arrangements without disturbing the underlying framework that generates them. By transformative remedies, in contrast, I mean remedies aimed at correcting inequitable outcomes precisely by restructuring the underlying generative framework. The nub of the contrast is end-state outcomes versus the processes that produce them. (p. 82).    
Integration: The Results of an Intersection between the Types of Injustices and the Types of Remedies
After presenting the various types of injustices, the various types of social collectivities that are derived from them, and the patterns of the “remedy” for the various types of injustices, Professor Fraser, in effect, moves on to the operative “result” of the integration of the matrix of these classifications. The result is the following table (p. 87):
[For the chart, please see page 54 of BIFOCAL Vol. 35, Issue 2.] 

As the table shows, each intersection of a type of injustice with a type of change leads to a different pattern of social policy. From a description of matters thus far, it is fairly clear that Professor Fraser, on the conceptual level, supports a policy that integrates a transformative remedy on both of the injustice fronts – the redistributive as well as the recognitive. Or, as she puts it: “For both gender and ‘race’, the scenario that best finesses the redistribution–recognition dilemma is socialism in the economy plus deconstruction in the culture.” (p. 91).
Status and Injustice for Older Persons
At this point, I would like to incorporate the knowledge about the ageing, along with Professor Fraser’s theory of social justice that was presented above, and to ask first: From what “injustice” do older people suffer? And what “type” of social group are they? I will risk stating that, generally speaking, older persons suffer from what Professor Fraser would call distributive injustice. The basis for this argument is supported by a wide range of well-known data relating to poverty rates of older persons around the world: a significant portion of the older population experiences poverty. In many countries around the world, many older persons suffer from moderate or severe nutritional insecurity, or experience economic distress. I believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove that there is truth to the argument that older persons across the globe indeed suffer from “distributive injustice.”
I now arrive at the central question: Do older persons suffer – in addition to the distributive injustice – from cultural and symbolic injustice as well? My answer to this question is: Yes. Older persons are not only an exploited class, but a disparaged class as well. They are a disparaged class due to the fact that they suffer – significantly and substantively – from what is known as ageism. Ageism is a complex term, which is not easy to define. One of the key figures in connection with developing the boundaries of the term ageism and defining it is the late Dr. Robert Butler. One of the first definitions, known as “Butler and Lewis’s definition” of 1973, defined ageism thus (Butler and Lewis, 1973):
Ageism can be seen as a process of systematic stereotyping of and discrimination against people because they are old, just as racism and sexism accomplish this for skin color and gender. Old people are categorized as senile, rigid in thought and manner, old-fashioned in morality and skills [. . .] Ageism allows the younger generations to see older people as different from themselves, thus they subtly cease to identify with their elders as human beings.
Do older persons suffer from ageism around the world? Once again, I believe that there is ample evidence to suggest that the answer is yes. Older persons are discriminated because of their age at the work force; they are presented in a humiliated way in various popular media platforms; they are invisible to many key cultural institutions; and they are marginalized in major social activities. In most parts of the world, no one wants to be named: “old person.”
So - What Kind of “Social Justice” Do Older Persons Really Need? 
At this stage, it is time to move to the socio-legal remedies. In my opinion, the socio-legal policies that have been adopted in many countries around the world in the sphere of social justice in old age have focused on the different aspects of affirmative remedy of the distributive injustice:
  • Creating a social security system that is based on old age and survivor allowances alongside old age assured income systems;
  • Adding long-term care (either in the community or in institutions) to social security schemes;
  • Allocating resources to financing institutional frameworks for nursing care; or
  • Creating a range of economic discounts and benefits for “senior citizens.”
These all focused on an attempt to redistribute revenues in a manner that would “correct” the injustice of the elderly poor.
On the other hand, thus far, in the vast majority of countries around the world, no effective and significant legal action has been taken as part of a coherent and clear social policy aimed to contend with the symbolic and cultural-recognition injustice of older persons. Reality in many cases is quite the opposite: Social policies increased and emphasized the aspects of weakness, illness, and disability of older persons, and in so doing, in effect, reflected and bolstered the disparagement and the humiliation from which older persons suffer.
My personal conclusion from the analysis presented above is clear: in the sphere of socio-legal justice for older persons, national and international focus should be shifted from the “well-known failure” of redistributive justice to the “unknown failure” of cultural and symbolic justice. More specifically, this conclusion is relevant to the current discussion at the international level regarding the need for a new and specific human rights convention for the rights of older persons.
Beyond all other arguments, the understanding that there is a real symbolic, cultural, and “recognitional” importance to a new international human rights convention exclusively dedicated to older persons – is of significance. It explains why even if legal rights of older persons can be currently indirectly addressed through existing human rights instruments – this is not enough: it will not resolve the existing socio-legal injustice older persons are experiencing. Only a new and exclusive human rights convention will symbolize and dignify our recognition of older persons as a fully equal group worthy of society’s respect.
References
Doron, I. & Apter, I. (2010). International rights of older persons: What difference would an international convention make on the lives of older persons? Marquette Elder’s Advisor Law Review, 11(2), 367-385.
Doron, I. & Apter, I. (2010a). The Debate Around the Need for an International Convention on the Rights of Older Persons. The Gerontologist, 50(5), 586-593.
Doron, I., & Spanier, B. (2012). International convention on rights of older persons: Where we were, where we are and where we are going? Global Ageing, 8(1), 7-16.
Doron, I., Brown, B., & Somers, S. (2013). International protection for the human rights of older people: History and future prospects. In P. Brownell and J. Kelly (Eds.) Ageism and Mistreatment of Older Workers: Current Reality, Future Solutions (pp. 165-180). NY, New York: Springer.
Fraser, N. (1995). From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a ‘Post-Socialist’ Age. New Left Review, 212, 68–94. ■ 

Sunday, September 23, 2018

A new book on Australian Elder Law


A new book on Australian elder law. Yet another example of the growing need and interest in our field.