论所有公民的平等和“二等”公民-Equality of all citizens and ‘second-class’ citizens
Introduction
Traditionally, the notion of democratic society implies the equality of all citizens that form this society. Moreover, many developed countries declare to be really democratic and each citizen is supposed to have as much rights as any other, regardless social status, level of income, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, language, etc. Unfortunately, in actuality, the situation is quite different from what is often declared and certain inequality may be often observed in different situation in relation to different social groups and naturally the reaction of people on such a situation is different. Notably, if those who really have all civil rights and responsibilities feel quite comfortable they often prefer to simply ignore the problems, which other categories of people may have. The latter feel being deprived by the rest of the society and each group’s position is unique depending on the legislative spectrum they the lack of the declared equality of rights.Obviously, there is a paradoxical situation when the society is considered to be democratic, i.e. the society where civil rights and responsibilities are presumably equal, but, at the same time, there are some marginalized groups which are deprived by the majority of population and cannot fully realise their civil rights.
Disability and poverty
Unfortunately, one of the main problems that democratic societies often face is the problem of disabled people and the problem of poverty. Often these two problems are closely related to one another. It is evident that disabled people feel to a significant extent isolated from the rest of society due to some physical or health problems which make impossible to lead a normal life as other people do. They are deprived of a possibility to do many things they used to do in the past or what other health people do. Naturally this problem needs immediate solution but in actuality the society and government turn to be unable to fully solve this problem.
For instance, in Canada, despite a relatively good general socio-economic situation, the problem of disabled people remains relevant. There are still some discussion on the definition of the notion of disability while the effectiveness of programs is quite low.
At this respect it is noteworthy that there is “a common failing is to confuse the definition of disability with the eligibility criteria. It is important to remember it is acceptable for different programs to have different objectives. However, it is not the definition of disability that should change from one problem to another, but rather the eligibility criteria” (HRDC 1994). In the same report the following information may also be found: “In Canada, the tendency has been to define disability on the basis of the intentions of programs” (HRDC 1994). As a result, programs in Canada basically tend to comprise a combination of medical, functional, and vocational criteria in defining eligibility and very often not only the cause of disability but also the circumstances under which it occurred are taken into consideration.
Such a situation with the definition of disability and consequently with eligibility for programs resulted in an ambiguity in the policy because if view disability differently consequently the programs should also be changed. Probably, disabled people suffered the most from such an ambiguity. The definition of disability necessarily affects the programs for disabled people in terms of the size, characteristics and needs of disabled population.
Naturally, when there is such a mess in the definition of disability and the programs which actually should aim at the improvement of the position of disabled people, it is practically impossible for those who really need such kind of help and for the society at large to clearly understand all the nuances of legislation, policy and programs worked out by the federal and local governments. Consequently, the si
