tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5213212286181476541.post8063362669729743248..comments2011-11-02T11:39:52.396+08:00Paul Barterhttps://profiles.google.com/111914476212946699750noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5213212286181476541.post-82787310662569872452011-07-28T23:18:22.577+08:002011-07-28T23:18:22.577+08:00I&#39;m a lawyer in Lahore, Pakistan and am counsel in a case in which I am arguing that there is a right to mobility. As in it is everyone&#39;s fundamental right to get from A to B. Sounds simple enough, but what I&#39;m asking the Court to do is to recognize that the right to mobility is not an infrastructure problem (In other words, throwing an overpass or a rapid mass transit system is not the solution) Instead, what I&#39;m arguing is for the Court to recognize that the right to mobility is about choices. It&#39;s about the choices one has of getting from A to B, be it to walk, cycle, take a bus or taxi or private automobile, ride a mass transit bus or rail system or even use an escalator or elevator. <br /><br />These are the multiplicity of choices that comprise the right to mobility and the restriction on choice, I argue, is a violation of the right to mobility. In other words, if urban development prefers expressways over walkways, it can be argued that urban development is violating the right to mobility.<br /><br />In the Pakistani context, I must add that there is very little choice of mobility. Urban sprawl in cities is automobile dependent. There are no proper sidewalks, the public transport is inefficient and under-capacity. It is my personal opinion that, given the conditions existing in each of the choices, women, children, senior citizens and the handicapped are effectively immobile. This constitutes nearly half the population and can also be argued to be a major retardant of the economy and social interaction.Rafay Alamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00125735594813770157noreply@blogger.com