DOCSLIB.ORG

Full Report Acknowledgements This Research Was Commissioned by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Full Report Acknowledgements This Research Was Commissioned by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland Disability programmes and policies: How does Northern Ireland measure up? Monitoring Implementation (public policy and programmes) of the United Nations Convention onthe Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“UNCRPD”) in Northern Ireland. Colin Harper, Simon McClenahan, Dr Bronagh Byrne and Hannah Russell Disability Action Full Report Acknowledgements This research was commissioned by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions made by all the individuals, groups, voluntary sector organisations and government departments who contributed to this report. We are indebted to the research participants who shared their expertise and experiences of disability and the services and processes of government. The authors are grateful for the valuable feedback and editorial guidance provided by the Project Advisory Group. Throughout the project we worked closely with a number of staff at the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and we very much appreciate their insights, assistance and guidance. This report was commissioned by The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) and prepared by Colin Harper, Simon McClenahan, Hannah Russell and Bronagh Byrne from Disability Action, Northern Ireland. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Table of Contents 1.1. Introduction 3 1.2. Research Remit 4 1.3. Methodology 4 1.4. Results 4 1.5. Conclusions 10 2. Terms of Reference 12 2.1. Background 12 2.2. Aim 15 2.3. Objectives 16 2.4. Exclusions 16 3. Background to UNCRPD 19 3.1. Treaty Interpretation and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 21 3.2. Obligations flowing from Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 27 3.3. Prescribed Obligations 28 3.4. Affirmation of rights 29 3.5. Common Specific Phrases Recurring Within The CRPD 31 4. Methodology 33 4.1. General 33 4.2. Stage 1: The process of identification of obligations with respect to policies and programmes (6/9/2010 to 13/10/10) 33 4.3. Stage 2: Identification of shortfalls in policy and programmes in Northern Ireland (13/9/2010 to 26/11/10) 36 4.4. Stage 3: Identification of shortfalls in policy and programmes in Northern Ireland 37 4.5. Stage 4: Assessment of key areas of non compatibility of public policy and programmes in Northern Ireland with respect to Article 5-31 of the UNCRPD 40 4.6. Stage 5: Analysis and write up phase (March to May 2011) 42 5. Key requirements of Articles 5 to 31 UNCRPD and key policy and programmes in Northern Ireland 42 5.1. Article 5: Equality and Non-Discrimination 45 5.2. Article 6: Women 57 5.3. Article 7: Children with disabilities 62 5.4. Article 8: Awareness raising 68 5.5. Article 9: Accessibility 86 5.6. Article 10: Right to Life 109 5.7. Article 11: Situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies 117 5.8. Article 12: Equal recognition before the law 122 5.9. Article 13: Access to Justice 128 5.12. Article 16: Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse 142 5.13. Article 17: Protecting the integrity of the person 147 5.15. Article 19: Independent living 153 1 5.17. Article 21: Freedom of expression and opinion and access to information 169 5.18. Article 22: Respect for privacy 175 5.20. Article 24: Education 184 5.21. Article 25: Health 196 5.22. Article 26: Habilitation and rehabilitation 207 5.23. Article 27: Work and employment 211 5.24. Article 28: Adequate standard of living and social protection 222 5.25. Article 29: Participation in political and public life 230 5.26. Article 30: Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport 243 5.27. Article 31: Statistics and data collection 249 6. Key areas where there are substantive shortfalls between public policy and programme delivery in Northern Ireland relative to the requirements of the UNCRPD 261 6.1. Identification of key areas 261 6.2. Assessment of the key areas of non-compatibility of public policy and programmes in Northern Ireland with respect to Articles 5-31 of the UNCRPD 263 6.3. Conclusions 270 7. Bibliography: Including academic literature in English on the UNCRPD 272 8. Appendix 1: IMNI conference questionnaire results 280 8.1 Introduction 280 8.2 Methodology 280 8.3 Results 281 8.4 Discussion and Conclusions 298 8.5 List of responses to the open questions (Questions 8 to 11) 300 9. Appendix 2: Results from the IMNI conference workshop, ‘Independent Mechanism research – priorities for public policy and programmes – Your views?’ 312 9.1 Results from Group 1 312 9.2 Results from Group 2 313 9.3 Results from Group 3 314 9.4 Results from Group 4 315 10. Appendix 3: Results from the three scoping focus groups 316 10.1 Service user scoping focus group on 15 December 2010 316 10.2 Representative (scoping) focus group on 10 January 2011 319 10.3 Representative scoping focus group held on Friday 14th January 2011 322 11. Appendix 4: Results of the three thematic focus groups 326 11.1 First thematic focus group on the 19th January 2011 (Awareness raising) 325 11.2 Second thematic focus group on the 26th January 2011 (Participation in political and public life) 329 11.3 Third thematic focus group workshop on the 18th February 2011, Article 9 and 21 ‘access to information’ and Article 31 on ‘statistics and data collection’ 333 2 1. Executive Summary 1.1. Introduction With limited exceptions, United Nations human rights treaties do not expressly address the human rights of people with disabilities. Recognition of the need for the UN to play a much greater and ‘enabling’ role in promoting and monitoring the rights of people with disabilities resulted in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities coming into force on 3 May 2008 and being ratified by the UK on 8 June 2009. It contains 50 Articles and encompasses a range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. The overall purpose of the Convention is to ‘promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.’1 The Convention2 contains a range of rights and obligations from, for example, the Right to Life (Article 10), to Education (Article 24), Health (Article 25) and Statistics and Data Collection (Article 31). While the rights specified in the Convention are largely specified in other human rights instruments, the Convention focuses on the actions that States must take to ensure that people with disabilities enjoy these rights on an equal basis with others. To date, 101 States have ratified the Convention and there have been 149 signatories. The Convention is a new human rights treaty and there are limited resources available to determine the exact nature and extent of obligations with respect to policies and programmes for each Article. As the interpretation of the UNCRPD by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities develops over time, the conclusions of this study can be refined. It should also be noted that the timeframe of the study coincided with the development of the United Kingdom UNCRPD report and the continuing development of policies and programmes within the local justification. 1 United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, (2007), Article 1 2 For explanation of the full Articles of the UNCRPD please see: http://www.equalityni.org/archive/pdf/UNCRPDOptionalProtocolPE.pdf 3 1.2. Research Remit The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland commissioned Disability Action’s Centre on Human Rights for People with Disabilities to carry out research to identify key strategic issues / barriers in public policies and programmes to the full implementation in Northern Ireland of the UNCRPD. The main aim of this research was to identify areas of substantive shortfalls in public policy and programme delivery in Northern Ireland relative to the key requirements of Articles 5-31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) which will influence the implementation of the UNCRPD. The research was limited to policies and programmes and does not systematically and exhaustively consider obligations with respect to legal measures required by the Convention. It is essential that the findings of this research be considered in the light of the legal obligations on States Parties contained in the UNCRPD and the interaction of current legislation. 1.3. Methodology The research adopted a mixed methods approach which combined: an identification of policies and programmes from the text of the Convention itself; an analysis of a small scale questionnaire (n=44) and workshop (n=28) from the Independent Mechanism for Northern Ireland, December 2010 conference and of 6 focus groups (n=67 in total) held during December 2010 to February 2011; an examination of policies, programmes and guidelines in Northern Ireland and of information from key stakeholders. A key method used in this research was the involvement of people with disabilities and their representatives in the identification and analysis of key areas and how these related to the real lives and experiences of disabled people. The information examined relates to the period July 2010 to March 2011 although some key data after that period has been included when possible. 1.4. Results The full report identified a range of shortfalls or gaps in key programmes and policies relevant to the Articles of the UNCRPD. Using the available literature and research with disabled people, their representatives and other stakeholders, three priority or key areas for action fundamental to the effectiveness of any programme to fulfil the implementation, monitoring and accessibility requirements of the UNCRPD were chosen.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The North/South Language Body Annual Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 31 December
    The North/South Language Body Annual Report and Accounts For the year ended 31 December 2015 An Foras Teanga Tuarascáil Bhliantúil agus Cuntais An bhliain dar chríoch 31 Nollaig 2015 Tha Boord o Leid An Accoont o the Darg For the year hinmaist 31 Decemmer 2015 Foras na Gaeilge The Ulster-Scots Agency 7 Cearnóg Mhuirfean The Corn Exchange Baile Átha Cliath 2 31 Gordon Street +353 (0)1 6398400 Belfast BT1 2LG +44 (0)28 9023 1113 www.forasnagaeilge.ie www.ulsterscotsagency.com [email protected] [email protected] Foras na Gaeilge The Ulster-Scots Agency Teach an Gheata Thiar William Street 2-4 Sráid na Banríona Raphoe Béal Feirste Co. Donegal BT1 6ED +353 (0)74 9173876 +44 (0)28 9089 0970 North/South Language Body Annual Report and Accounts For the year ended 31 December 2015 Laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly under North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 Schedule 1, Annex 2, Part 7, paragraphs 1.3 and 2.6 by the Department for Communities 18 5 2017 The Language Body is a North/South Implementation Body sponsored by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (DAHRRGA) and the Department for Communities (DfC). It was established on the 2nd of December 1999 under the British-Irish Agreement which set up the implementation bodies and which was underpinned by the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999 and the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. It reports to the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC). The Language Body comprises Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency.
    [Show full text]
  • A Top Secret Program Hidden in Plain Sight
    Follow the links – read the articles, pdf’s. Find out what’s really happening in your world… Why Microwave Auditory Effect Crowd-Control Gun Won't Work By Monica Heger First Published July 2008 Experts say you'd fry before you heard anything PHOTO: FRANCO VOGT/CORBIS 22 July 2008—New Scientist magazine recently reported that Sierra Nevada Corp., based in Sparks, Nevada, plans to build what it calls a nonlethal microwave ray gun with the ability to beam irritating sounds into people’s heads. But experts in the underlying biophysics say it cannot work: the device would kill you well before you were bothered by the noise. The gun, which is being built by Lev Sadovnik at Sierra Nevada, would take advantage of a phenomenon known as the microwave auditory effect. When microwaves are delivered in short pulses, the cochlear tissue in the ear expands. That expansion is heard as an audible click to anyone receiving the radiation, a sound much like that of two rocks being hit together underwater. The company says that the device, called MEDUSA (for “mob excess deterrent using silent audio”), could be used for crowd control. However, experts say the gun wouldn’t work as advertised. There is no way the ray gun could deliver sound loud enough to be annoying at nonfatal power levels, says Kenneth Foster, a bioengineering professor at the University of Pennsylvania who first published research on the microwave auditory effect in 1974. “Any kind of exposure you could give to someone that wouldn’t burn them to a crisp would produce a sound too weak to have any effect,” Foster says.
    [Show full text]
  • Study on Children's Involvement in Judicial Proceedings – Contextual
    Study on children’s involvement in judicial proceedings – contextual overview for administrative justice – UK (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) November 2014 (Research carried out between July 2013 and January 2014) Justice Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). Study on children’s involvement in judicial proceedings – contextual overview for administrative justice – UK (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) * A separate report has been drawn up on UK Scotland. July 2014 (Research carried out between July 2013 and January 2014) This National Report has been prepared by Gavin McBride for Milieu Ltd in partnership with ICF under Contract No JUST/2011/CHIL/PR/0147/A4 with the European Commission, DG Justice and Consumers. The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. European Commission – Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 PDF ISBN 978-92-79-47533-7 doi:10.2838/454909 DS-04-15-220-EN-N © European Union, 2015 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • CCPR/C/95/Add.3 Political Rights 19 December 1994
    UNITED NATIONS CCP International covenant Distr. GENERAL on civil and CCPR/C/95/Add.3 political rights 19 December 1994 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT Fourth periodic reports of States parties due in 1994 Addendum UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND 1/ [14 October 1994] 1/ For the initial report submitted by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, see CCPR/C/1/Add.17, Add.35, Add.37 and Add.39; for its consideration by the Committee, see CCPR/C/SR.67, SR.69 and SR.70; SR.147-SR.149; and SR.161, SR.162 and SR.164, and Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-third session, Supplement No. 40 (A/33/40), paras. 184-226, as well as Thirty-fourth session, Supplement No. 40 (A/34/40), paras. 228-247 and paras. 300-371, respectively. For the second periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, see CCPR/C/32/Add.5, Add.14 and Add.15; for its consideration by the Committee, see CCPR/C/SR.593-598 and SR.855-SR.857 and Official Records of the General Assembly, Fortieth session, Supplement No. 40 (A/40/40), paras. 518-580, and Forty-fourth session, Supplement No. 40 (A/44/40), paras. 140-189, respectively. For the third periodic report submitted by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, see CCPR/C/58/Add.6, Add.11 and Add.12; for its consideration by the Committee, see CCPR/C/SR.1045-SR.1050 and Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-sixth session, Supplement No.
    [Show full text]
  • Differences Between Immigrants and Natives in Germany and the UK
    Employment, Wage Structure, and the Economic Cycle: Differences between Immigrants and Natives in Germany and the UK Christian Dustmann (UCL, CReAM), Albrecht Glitz (Universitat Pompeu Fabra, CReAM) and Thorsten Vogel (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, CReAM)1 June 2008 Abstract: Differences in the cyclical pattern of employment and wages of immigrants relative to natives have largely gone unnoticed in the migration literature. In this paper, we address this issue. Based on over two decades of micro data, our investigation covers two of the largest immigrant receiving countries in Europe, Germany and the UK. We show that despite the heterogeneity in their immigrant populations, there are similar differences in cyclical responses between both countries’ immigrant and native populations, even conditional on skills, age, and other background characteristics. To obtain a summary measure for these differences across and within education groups, we estimate a factor type model that, using regional variation in economic conditions, separates responses to economic shocks from secular trends. We then provide a number of possible explanations for our findings. Keywords : Immigration, Wage Structure, Business Cycle JEL : E32, F22, J31 1 Corresponding author: Christian Dustmann, Department of Economics, University College London, Drayton House, 30 Gordon Street, London, WC1H 0AX, UK. Email: [email protected] . Tel: +44-20-7679- 5832. Fax: +44-20-7916-2775. This project has been supported by a grant from the Anglo-German Foundation. We also thank the Barcelona Economics Program of CREA for its support. We are grateful to Stefan Bender and Johannes Ludsteck for assistance with the German data, and to Nikos Theodoropoulos for assistance with the UK data.
    [Show full text]
  • CCPR/C/95/Add.3 Political Rights 19 December 1994
    UNITED NATIONS CCP International covenant Distr. GENERAL on civil and CCPR/C/95/Add.3 political rights 19 December 1994 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT Fourth periodic reports of States parties due in 1994 Addendum UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND 1/ [14 October 1994] 1/ For the initial report submitted by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, see CCPR/C/1/Add.17, Add.35, Add.37 and Add.39; for its consideration by the Committee, see CCPR/C/SR.67, SR.69 and SR.70; SR.147-SR.149; and SR.161, SR.162 and SR.164, and Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-third session, Supplement No. 40 (A/33/40), paras. 184-226, as well as Thirty-fourth session, Supplement No. 40 (A/34/40), paras. 228-247 and paras. 300-371, respectively. For the second periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, see CCPR/C/32/Add.5, Add.14 and Add.15; for its consideration by the Committee, see CCPR/C/SR.593-598 and SR.855-SR.857 and Official Records of the General Assembly, Fortieth session, Supplement No. 40 (A/40/40), paras. 518-580, and Forty-fourth session, Supplement No. 40 (A/44/40), paras. 140-189, respectively. For the third periodic report submitted by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, see CCPR/C/58/Add.6, Add.11 and Add.12; for its consideration by the Committee, see CCPR/C/SR.1045-SR.1050 and Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-sixth session, Supplement No.
    [Show full text]
  • Document Title: Justice – Lessons from Northern Ireland? Author(S
    Document Title: Justice – Lessons From Northern Ireland? Author(s): Noel Mc Guirk Document No.: 208013 Date Received: December 2004 This paper appears in Policing in Central and Eastern Europe: Dilemmas of Contemporary Criminal Justice, edited by Gorazd Mesko, Milan Pagon, and Bojan Dobovsek, and published by the Faculty of Criminal Justice, University of Maribor, Slovenia. This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this final report available electronically in addition to NCJRS Library hard-copy format. Opinions and/or reference to any specific commercial products, processes, or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise do not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government. Translation and editing were the responsibility of the source of the reports, and not of the U.S. Department of Justice, NCJRS, or any other affiliated bodies. NOEL MC GUIRK JUSTICE – LESSONS FROM NORTHERN IRELAND? The most basic assumption in human rights is that Governments should remain re- sponsible for the loss of life of its citizens who have been killed at the hands of law enforcement agents. The ability of citizens to live free from fear and intimidation by law enforcement agents are prerequisites in any democracy; as it is commonly viewed that the very central pillar in a democracy is that the security forces will be the upholders of law and order through which fundamental rights for all will be secured. In Northern Ireland, however, the level of deaths occasioned by the use of lethal force is higher than any other part of the UK and it is the arbitrary taking of life by the state, in particular the level of extra-judicial killings that merits particu- lar scrutiny.
    [Show full text]
  • VOLUME II Summary Comparative Tables by Indicator
    EMCDDA SCIENTIFIC REPORT Drug seizures, drug offences, drug offenders, drug use among criminal populations ___ Information systems based on law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system VOLUME II Summary comparative tables by indicator EMCDDA / 2002 2 EMCDDA SCIENTIFIC REPORT Drug seizures, drug offences, drug offenders, drug use among criminal populations ___ Information systems based on law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system VOLUME II Summary comparative tables by indicator EMCDDA / P1 / P4 / 2002 3 This report was prepared by: Chloé Carpentier, EMCDDA, Lisbon (volumes I, II, III) Cécile Martel, EMCDDA, Lisbon (volumes I, II) © European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2002 Quotation is authorised providing the source is acknowledged. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction Rua da Cruz de Santa Apolónia 23-25 PT - 1149-045 Lisboa Portugal Tel: + 351 21 811 30 00 Fax: + 351 21 813 17 11 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.emcdda.org 4 Table of Contents VOLUME II – SUMMARY COMPARATIVE TABLES INTRODUCTION 6 DRUG SEIZURES 7 POLICE/CUSTOMS INTERVENTIONS 27 PROSECUTION STATISTICS 49 CONVICTION STATISTICS 56 PENAL STATISTICS 67 DRUG USE AMONG ARRESTEES 81 DRUG USE AMONG PRISONERS 84 5 Introduction The Comparative Summary Tables that follow have been made on the basis of the forms submitted by the National Focal Points within Part II of Information Map 2000-2001. These tables are organised around seven indicators: - Drug seizures (drug seizures made by law enforcement agencies) - Police/Customs
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Potter
    Michael Potter Year of Call: 1988 Call Clerk on 020 7827 4000 PRACTICE AREAS Discrimination & Equality | Employment | Human Rights | Professional Discipline OVERVIEW Michael Potter's primary area of practice is employment, including employment law and employment-related civil litigation. He also specialises in the fields of health and social care law. In October 2013 he was called to the Bar of England and Wales. Educated at Queen's University Belfast (QUB), he graduated in 1986, and was called to the Northern Ireland Bar in September 1988. In 1991, following post-graduate study at QUB, he graduated with an LLM by thesis in Public Law. From 1994-1996, he worked as the Employment Caseworker in the Law Centre (NI). When he returned to private practice in 1997, he specialised in employment. Michael has represented both employers and employees in many leading and complex employment and discrimination cases. In 2005 he was appointed to the Government Legal Service Civil Panel, and has since advised and litigated for public authorities on matters relating to employment and other areas. He also has been instructed in employment and discrimination cases by trade unions and their members, as well as the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. His practice has included employer liability litigation, including harassment, stress at work and accidents at work. In the Chancery Division he has acted in cases relating to employment contract and industrial relation disputes. In addition, Michael has played an influential role in the development of mental health and social care jurisprudence in Northern Ireland; having been involved in most of the jurisdiction's leading public law mental health litigation in the last fifteen years.
    [Show full text]
  • Magdalene Laundries NI Briefing May 2013
    AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL BRIEFING MAGDALENE LAUNDRY-TYPE INSTITUTIONS IN NORTHERN IRELAND The case for a human rights response by the Northern Ireland Executive INTRODUCTION The Irish Government’s Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee 1 to establish the facts of State involvement with the Magdalene Laundries, published on 5 February 2013 (hereafter, the McAleese Report), made clear that the women and girls in these laundry institutions experienced a range of serious human rights abuses including inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary deprivation of liberty and forced labour. Publicity around the report prompted a number of women who were in similar institutions in Northern Ireland to approach Amnesty International with their stories. These women feel that their experiences were the same or similar to those found in the Republic of Ireland, yet believe that their situation is being ignored by the Northern Ireland authorities, in contrast to the response, albeit belated, from the Irish Government. This briefing document forms part of Amnesty International’s response to their call for justice and sets out the case for the Northern Ireland Executive to accept and meet its obligations to provide justice for any abuses suffered by women and girls within this jurisdiction. States are bound to protect the human rights, lives, and physical security of all women and girls under their jurisdiction. States have an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the right of victims of human rights violations to an effective remedy. This obligation includes three elements: • Truth: establishing the facts about violations of human rights that occurred in the past; • Justice: investigating past violations and, if enough admissible evidence is gathered, prosecuting the suspected perpetrators; • Reparation: providing full and effective reparation to the victims and their families, in its five forms: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.
    [Show full text]
  • Irish Literature Since 1990 Examines the Diversity and Energy of Writing in a Period Marked by the Unparalleled Global Prominence of Irish Culture
    BREW0009 15/5/09 11:17 am Page 1 Irish literature since 1990 Irish literature since 1990 examines the diversity and energy of writing in a period marked by the unparalleled global prominence of Irish culture. The book is distinctive in bringing together scholars from across Europe and the United States, whose work explores Irish literary culture from a rich variety of critical perspectives. This collection provides a wide-ranging survey of fiction, poetry and drama over the last two decades, considering both well-established figures and newer writers who have received relatively little critical attention before. It also considers creative work in cinema, visual culture and the performing arts. Contributors explore the central developments within Irish culture and society that have transformed the writing and reading of identity, sexuality, history and gender. The volume examines the contexts from which the literature emerges, including the impact of Mary Robinson’s presidency in the Irish Republic; the new buoyancy of the Irish diaspora, and growing cultural confidence ‘back home’; legislative reform on sexual and moral issues; the uneven effects generated by the resurgence of the Irish economy (the ‘Celtic Tiger’ myth); Ireland’s increasingly prominent role in Europe; the declining reputation of established institutions and authorities in the Republic (corruption trials and Church scandals); the Northern Ireland Peace Process, and the changing relationships it has made possible. In its breadth and critical currency, this book will be of particular BREWSTER interest to academics and students working in the fields of literature, drama and cultural studies. Scott Brewster is Director of English at the University of Salford Michael Parker is Professor of English Literature at the University of Central Lancashire AND Cover image: ‘Collecting Meteorites at Knowth, IRELANTIS’.
    [Show full text]
  • Differences Between Immigrants and Natives
    IZA DP No. 4432 Employment, Wages, and the Economic Cycle: Differences between Immigrants and Natives Christian Dustmann Albrecht Glitz Thorsten Vogel September 2009 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor Employment, Wages, and the Economic Cycle: Differences between Immigrants and Natives Christian Dustmann University College London, CReAM and IZA Albrecht Glitz Universitat Pompeu Fabra and IZA Thorsten Vogel Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Discussion Paper No. 4432 September 2009 IZA P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180 E-mail: [email protected] Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.
    [Show full text]