Recognition and e-Democracy for the Disabled Community Judith Molka-Danielsen, PhD[1][1] Susan Balandin, PhD Beinta í Jákupsstovu, Dr. Polit SWEG February 2nd-3rd 2009 Kristiansand Norway

One challenge: resolving a difference in perception “Disabled people’s reliance on others for help with the tasks of daily living is confused with dependence whereas, according to the independent living movement, independence stems from the ability to control the assistance required.” (Lister, 2007)

Society’s Questions Who do we recognize? Legislation is slow to appear –US Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was first major US law to grant persons with disability such basic civil rights. –Rights of disabled person to the same fundamental rights as all other people, including the same civil and political rights (United Nations, 1975). –EU signs human-rights charter 30 March 2007 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. But does not sign the protocal for complaints procedure. Who are we prepared to redistribute (rights)? –Access to information - Rehabilitation Act (2001) to address rights of access to information. (not implemented) –Ability to voice opinion in social context. (How?)

Democratic Models Held (2006/7) - “participatory democracy” focus on the significance of peoples’ direct involvement Beethams (2005) - focus on the value of political participation and highlights the possibilities in digital democracy But, does ICT help persons with disability? Democracy Committee of the Nordic Council of Ministers (Demokratiutvalget, Sluttrapport ANP 2005:701) report on the danger of “digital divides” & have revealed that ICT first and foremost is a supplementary tool for the few that already are politically active, while the groups that are not already included in political work, do not use ICT to become more politically active.

Possible Barriers to Political Activity Lower average annual income (than the general population) – that prevents access to ICT. Physical disability that interferes with communication (limited sight, hearing, motor control). Learning disability – that can be related to fewer years of formal education or cognitive disability. Limited former experience with ICT due to the above reasons.

Norway: Percentage with access to different ICT, by household type and household income. 2nd quarter 2008 (Ref: TypePCInternet All households8684 HH w/children98 HH w/o children8077 HH income NOK 1000 < >60097 Degree of disability 2004 Total income (NOK) 1000 All disability pensioners % disabled % disabled % disabled % disabled191

Centrality% Households with Broadband Least Central57 Little Central63 Somewhat Central64 Most Central69 Private Broadband Subscriptions by Centrality Rating of Municipality 3rd Quarter 2008 Reference:

PopulationEmployedUnemployed Not in the labour force Age and sex Total (1) Disabled (2) Total (3) Disabled (4) Total (5) Disabled (6) Total (7) Disabled (8) TOTAL PER CENT 100,017,277,345,32,22,920,451, ,08,359,548,45,47,835,143, ,09,586,751,62,25,511,142, ,018,587,153,61,32,711,643, ,030,778,944,81,01,120,154, ,038,053,728,90,40,645,970,5 Norway Population aged 15-66, total, and persons with disabilities, by labour force status, age and sex. 2nd quarter and as per cent of all in each group.

How do persons with a disability engage in local politics? NIBR Report 2006:1 (Hanssen & Winsvold) Hanssen and Winsvold explored the following major issues: 1.Do disabled engage in local politics by means of modern electronic communication (via ICT); 2.What do disabled use ICT for with a focus on the use of municipal home pages; that is are there differences between the disabled and general public use of ICT for political ends; and lastly 3.What can local political administrations do to ensure equal participation in local politics for all parties? Good questions – however, response rates were low and not representative of persons over 55 years.

How can disabled persons be given a voice? e-Government policies through e-Democracy channels of communication must address issues of cultural misrecognition and material inequalities. (Lister, 2007; Goodlad and Ridell 2005; Witcher 2005). 1. Government regulations & policies must support the opinion of a disabled person on equal footing with those who do not have a disability. 2. Government must ensure that there are low cost ways to access government information and services.

Beginning to address 1 & 2 1.Comprehensive Statistics – The European Model on Disability and Social Integration (Jorun Ramm & Berit Otnes, ) says The Nordic Cooperation on Disability (NSH) has announced a need for comparable statistics on people with disabilities across Nordic countries. The European Disability and Social Integration Module is to be implemented in the EU countries during , will be a new approach to study disability. It will collect and analyze data with emphasis activity limitations and participation restriction, in addition to individual limitations. 2. Support standard approaches that will aid disabled persons to express their opinions and participate actively within their communities. –W3C WCAG 2.0 – Web Content Accessibility Guidelines released on December 10th 2008 will help web designers to build sites that can be read and understood by persons with blindness, hearing impairments, physical impairments and cognitive disabilities such as short-term memory impairment or seizure disorders.

Continued work Further study is needed. – The general attitudes and awareness in society are harder to change and require learning. We propose to do further literature review to include the findings of the most recent studies. We propose in related research to discover what supports are needed to engage persons with disability in the use of social ICT such as 3D virtual worlds. This can have meaning for a variety of social activities such as local political engagement. In the context of a 3D virtual world we intend to study the attitudes and understanding of a student segment towards persons with disabilities.