What Is Correct Language To Address Persons With Disabilities? Supreme Court's Handbook Explains

Supreme Court's 'Handbook Concerning Persons With Disabilities' elaborates on terms that must be avoided and provides alternative, respectful language for use in legal documents, judgments and society at large

The handbook provides better and suitable alternatives to "offensive terms such as crippled, idiot, loony, mad, junkie and retard in any derogatory contexts.”

Source : Canva (modified)

The Supreme Court has launched its official ‘Handbook Concerning Persons With Disabilities’ that has detailed guidence on how to avoid language that perpetuates stereotypes about disabilities against Persons with disabilities. It elaborates on terms that must be avoided and provides alternative, respectful language for use in legal documents, orders, and judgments.

The handbook provides better and suitable alternatives to "offensive terms such as crippled, idiot, loony, mad, junkie and retard in any derogatory contexts.” For instance it advises against the use of descriptions like infirm, stunted, unfit, helpless, crippled, defected, deformed, invalid, lame, maimed, mutilated, or subnormal while referring to PwDs.

Under the Chapter tiltled: 'General Language Principles Concerning Disability and Mental Health,' the handbook states that the language used by judges in their judgments carries immense weight and has the power to shape societal perceptions and attitudes.

"When it comes to addressing matters involving persons with disabilities, the use of sensitive language is of paramount importance. Judges must be mindful of avoiding dehumanising or demeaning terminology that perpetuates stigma and reinforces negative stereotypes. Instead, judges should strive to employ respectful language which empowers and accurately reflects the lived experiences of persons with disabilities. This includes avoiding outdated or offensive terms that may be considered insensitive or derogatory, as well as language that patronises or puts persons with disabilities on a pedestal," the handbook states.

It further adds that by consciously adopting respectful language in their judgments, judges not only promote inclusivity and dignity for persons with disabilities but also set a powerful precedent for others to follow. Their words can challenge deeply ingrained biases and misconceptions, contributing to a broader societal shift towards greater understanding, acceptance, and inclusion of this often marginalised community.

Some general guidelines when referring to persons with disabilities are:

1) Avoid stereotypical judgments about a person’s disability: Rather than assuming that all persons with disabilities are brave, heroic, inspiring, or suffering, burdened, and victimised, avoid value judgments about the person’s experience. Use neutral language to simply state the nature of the disability when relevant to the context. Instead of using weighted terms such as “afflicted by,” or “stricken by,” say “this person has [condition]” instead.

2) Credible diagnosis concerning medical conditions: Do not presume the existence of a medical condition. A diagnosis of a medical condition must be made by a licensed medical or mental health professional. If such confirmation is absent or not possible, use quotes around the term— for instance, “bipolar disorder” or qualifying language such as “is stated to have cerebral palsy” to indicate that no conclusive medical diagnosis exists.

3) Mention a person’s disability only if it is relevant to the context: For example, the fact that an individual has a locomotor disability is not relevant to the credibility of their testimony in a case concerning the authenticity of a will. On the other hand, the fact that a witness to a murder, who is being examined for the sole reason that they have seen the murder happen, has a visual impairment will be relevant to determining the value ascribed to the testimony and thus will be mentioned.

4) Avoid identifying someone solely by their disability: Rather than defining or making a disability appear as an essential trait of a person’s personality, assume that their disability is one facet of their personality.

5) Ask individuals how they would like to describe their disability: When possible, ask the individual in question how they would prefer to be described. When this is not possible, seek the advice of a trusted family member, caregiver, medical professional, legal representative, or organisation representing the person with disabilities. Persons with disabilities are often bypassed in conversations and the speaker often speaks with their friends or relatives accompanying them. Avoid this tendency and speak with the person directly as far as possible.

6) Be mindful of the diversity among persons with disabilities: The experience of every person with a disability is different. Do not assume that people with the same diagnosis feel similarly about their experiences or the world around them. Like people everywhere, persons with disabilities are a product of their unique, socio-economic and cultural contexts.

7) Be sensitive and try your best: The language around persons with disabilities has evolved considerably over the last century and will continue to do so. In this context, be sensitive to the experience of individuals and be open to learning and unlearning the appropriate language. Certain terms such as “abnormal” and “disorder” which continue to be used in medical contexts should be replaced by alternative terms when describing individuals in non-medical contexts. Make choices about language on a case-by-case basis.

8) Stereotype Perpetuating Terms and Alternative Language: Do not use offensive terms such as “crippled,” “idiot,” “loony,” “mad,” “junkie,” and “retard” in any derogatory contexts. Some terms such as “people of determination,” “special,” and “differently abled” are also considered condescending and offensive because they stigmatise the language around disability by substituting it. Avoid these too.

Some key terms to avoid when referring to persons with disabilities are: Infirm; Stunted; Unfit; Helpless; Crippled; Defected; Deformed; Invalid; Lame; Maimed; Mutilated; or Subnormal

Some key terms to avoid when referring to persons with intellectual or learning disabilities or mental health conditions are:
Crazy; Freak; Idiot; Insane; Loony; Mad; Maniac; Nut Case; Nuts; Nutter; Psycho; Simpleton; Stupid; or Unhinged.

“Person with disability” or “Disabled person”? Using the phrasing “person with a disability” is a people-first approach, where the individual is recognised and prioritised before the disability. For example, “person with a hearing disability” as opposed to “hearing disabled person.” A people-first approach is the most widely accepted language when referring to persons with disabilities and aligns with the RPwD Act and the UNCRPD. Therefore, the table below prioritises a people-first approach.

Alternatively, some individuals may prefer or find acceptable an identity-first approach that puts the disability first in the description: For example, “blind person” instead of “person with blindness.” If in doubt, it is best to ask individuals how they wish to identify. Stereotype perpetuating (Inappropriate) Alternative language and explanation (Preferred)

General Terms and Phrases in the Context of Persons with Disabilities

1. Able-bodied Normal Of sound body and/or mind Typical Whole Person without disability
2. Abnormal Atypical Although using “abnormal” and “abnormality” may be appropriate while referring to scientific or medical phenomena such as “genetic abnormality,” avoid using these terms while describing individuals. The use of such terms communicates that persons with disabilities are deviant and irregular.

Preferred language would be: Person with disability or Person with [condition/impairment]

3. Birth defect/Defective from birth The term “defect” implies that the person is somehow deficient or incomplete.

Alternative language would be: Congenital disability, Disability since birth, Born with a disability

4. Afflicted by/Burdened by/Suffering from/Stricken by/Troubled by/Victim of: These terms assume that a person with a disability is suffering.

Rather than making assumptions about the disability, use neutral language that simply states the nature of the disability when relevant.

5. Caretaker (of a person with disability): Caretaker implies the care of property. Alternatively, the caregiver denotes the care of people.

Therefore, the preferred term would be: Caregiver (of a person with disability)

6. Differently-abled Some consider this term inappropriate and condescending since every person is differently-abled. The term also stigmatizes language around disability by substituting it.

Alternative language would be: Person with disability/Person with [type of condition/impairment]

The handbook goes on to give details of terms to be used instead in public. For example, it states that instead of using the term 'disabled parking Handicapped parking', one should use 'Parking reserved for persons with disabilities or Accessible parking.' Instead of using the terms 'Disabled washroom, Handicapped washroom', one can use 'Accessible washroom'.

It further explains that the terms "Gifted, Special, People of determination" are understood to be condescending or euphemistically labels persons with disabilities. Preferred language would be: Person with disability or Person with [type of condition/impairment]