The article sheds light on the Danish legislator’s approach to the incorporation of the human rights obligation to reasonable disability accommodation. Through three different regulations of the duty to reasonable accommodation, it is illustrated how the legislature seeks to maintain an image of Denmark as a human rights frontrunner, while at the same time a core civil right for persons with disabilities is explicitly rejected from national law. Theories about the Nordic human rights paradox are reflected in the three cases, which illustrate how the paradox comes to be expressed in Nordic welfare legislation. The Nordic paradox alone, however, cannot explain the current legal situation, which must also be understood through the fact that negotiations are preferred over legislation, the role that the national disability organizations have played politically and the late recognition and implementation of a human rights approach to disability rights in Denmark in general. The current state of the law results in a problematic and fragmented picture of rights for persons with disabilities, and makes it difficult for disabled persons to gain a clear sense of their rights in relation to discrimination.
Gemensamt för olika uppfattningar om rättssäkerhet är deras karaktär av att utgöra kamouflagemål. Med detta menas skiftande mål, som ger uttryck för olika syften som används på högst varierande sätt, när den politiska uppfattningen pekar i olika riktningar. De skiftande uppfattningarna i regleringsbreven är typexempel på att man lyfter fram vissa mål och kamouflerar andra som man tidigare hänvisat till.
Prenumerera Beställ digitalt för 250 kr