NationStates Jolt Archive

Equal Access for Disabled

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: New Wave 10

Description:

In order to improve the way of life for those of our nations who are disabled, all public buildings must have facilities for the mobiliity/visibility/hearing impared.

This will allow the disabled population to enjoy the same level of public access as the able bodied population, greatly improving their quality of life

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 147 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Feb 14 2004

Equal Access for Disabled

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: New Wave 10

Description:

In order to improve the way of life for those of our nations who are disabled, all public buildings must have facilities for the mobiliity/visibility/hearing impared.

This will allow the disabled population to enjoy the same level of public access as the able bodied population, greatly improving their quality of life

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 147 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Feb 14 2004

This resolution seems too broad for the leader of Rethelanium to accept it. For that matter it defies logic in some cases- for example, would a movie theater really need accomodations for the blind? The resolution appears reasonable in principle, but it overlooks practicality.

I'm not sure the resolution could be construed as requiring all movies to include narration for the vision impaired. However, I think it reasonable that all public spaces would have to accommodate blind people by labeling doors in brail as well as the appropriate language. A given is that all public buildings would have to be wheelchair accessible.

I'd actually recommend that New Wave 10 send this in as an issue, rather than a proposal. I think it would make a very interesting issue for consideration by nations.

Although getting the humorous side to the negative could be a difficult task if it were made into an issue.

... and the relevance to international security and stability is?

Just because your country treats disabled people as second class citizens doesn't mean that 1) everyone else does or 2) it's got anything to do with the UN.

True, but the UN does tend to be on about equality of opportunity - and the war veteran with one leg seems to be in need of the same equality of opportunity as the starving boy from the Global South.

I suspect this should be an issue rather than a UN proposal. However, a universal human rights resolution of some description should cover this area of legislation. Not that the delegates appeared to have much time for such a proposal last time it came to vote. Ah, well.

Gigglealia: for the love of God, stop whinging. You've become so very bitter...

I'm not sure the resolution could be construed as requiring all movies to include narration for the vision impaired. However, I think it reasonable that all public spaces would have to accommodate blind people by labeling doors in brail as well as the appropriate language. A given is that all public buildings would have to be wheelchair accessible.

I'd actually recommend that New Wave 10 send this in as an issue, rather than a proposal. I think it would make a very interesting issue for consideration by nations.

Why the hell would you have PUBLIC (that is, government-run) movie theaters? This resolution doesn't extend to private facilities, you know.

Would you like to see the prposal amended to include private facilities as well?

And I'm not sure why you quoted Lubria - they did not state anything about public theatres. That came from Rethelanium. At any rate, some nations probably will have public cinemas/theatres (OOC - I know of some, they're very good as they show small, independent productions and often host community events), or theatres & cinemas that are public-private partnerships.

Would you like to see the prposal amended to include private facilities as well?

Private facilities have the right to install whatever the hell they want on their buildings.

And you have the right not to go there.

Well, no. Private facilities (or rather, those running them) should not have the right to put anything they like on them. It would be extremely ill-advised for building to be coated in large spikes, gelatinous goo or ravenous killer monkeys that are a threat to passers by. OK, so I'm labouring the point somewhat...

Where you have the provision of essential services, it makes sense that they should be readily accessable. That's not unreasonable and not an infringement of the individual liberties that you care so deeply for, rather an extension of those liberties.

Regards

We must concur with Ecopoeia on this. We fear that Global Market is confusing public enterprises - ie state-run companies - with public buildings (that is to say, any and all premises where the general public may normally go). That includes shops, pubs and bars, cinemas, sports stadiums, etc etc.

It is entirely reasonable - although I am not sure it should be a UN matter - to require all such buildings to be accessible to all. Certainly, all *newly constructed* buildings should be built so that they are easily accessible, and all older buildings should be retrofitted with the appropriate measures wherever possible.

As Ecopoeia says, it is a denial of individual rights to prevent the disabled from having full and unfettered access to the everyday privileges of life in a free society.

It is entirely reasonable - although I am not sure it should be a UN matter - to require all such buildings to be accessible to all.

As Ecopoeia says, it is a denial of individual rights to prevent the disabled from having full and unfettered access to the everyday privileges of life in a free society.
[OOC]Spoken as one who (probably) never had to deal with the other side of the equation.

IRL, I'm a small business owner. American Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements mandate that my business be accessible to all. Despite the fact that I had no customer complaints, nor was my business uniquely qualified to provide any given service, I was required to make my business wheelchair accessible. Since we were the sole tenant on the second floor of an older building, my choices were to build an external elevator or move. As the cost of an elevator was roughly three times our annual reveunes, we moved. That second-floor space has been vacant ever since.

It's been over 10 years, and I have seen exactly *one* customer in a wheelchair. This move was mandated by poorly thought-out laws that applied equally to all businesses. I could have brought merchandise to the customer in the parking lot, but the law didn't provide the flexibility for me to treat with my customers the way I thought best suited to *my* business.

By the way - my business had two components. What business does the government have telling me I have to provide access for the deaf in my music store, or access to the blind in my book store? Neither are likely to be customers of mine, yet the law's inclusive nature doesn't allow for that variance. This is a national or even local issue, and must have explicit allowances for variances.

When does *your* right to unfettered access trump *my* right to earn a living?

What business does the government have telling me I have to provide access for the deaf in my music store, or access to the blind in my book store?

Just a small thing, but I doubt that deaf people have a problem getting access through a door....

Just a small thing, but I doubt that deaf people have a problem getting access through a door....
Ummm ...
all public buildings must have facilities for the mobiliity/visibility/hearing impared.

In response to Frisbeeteria, you have my sympathies. However, I don't believe I (or East Hackney, though they may wish to confirm or refute that this themselves) are advocating the kind of legislation that affected you in such a distressing manner. Certainly it's not something the UN should produce. If there is a way that can be found to get past problems like this without businesses/whomever incurring excessive costs then this way should be taken.

Maybe the UN can legislate for basics in this regard, however - for public buildings, etc. I make no claim to having all the answers and I'm open to suggestions.

When does *your* right to unfettered access trump *my* right to earn a living?

Good question, and not one with an easy answer. If I recall correctly, British (possibly EU-wide law) compels *new* buildings to be constructed to standards that allow access for the disabled. It also compels owners of older buildings to modify them to fit the standards "wherever reasonably possible", or words to that effect.
I *think* it allows for case-by-case judgments on whether the cost of modifications would hurt the business and how desperately disabled people might need access to that particular building - so the only supermarket in a five-mile radius, which had a very profitable monopoly, would have no excuse not to, whereas one of five small and marginally profitable bookshops on the same street could justifiably refuse.

Hmm, that was a surprisingly moderate post. Erm...up the revolution! Crush capitalism! Frisbeeteria must die!

-DP-, blasted server

Quick follow-up...in general, the principle I would stick to is that you have no right to earn a living where that living is earnt through discrimination, be it running a whites-only bar to attract higher-income clientele, employing only illegal immigrants in order to keep down wage costs, or whatever.

*In principle*, an outdated building which denies access to disabled customers - and employees to, let's not forget, which makes it doubly discriminatory - falls under this category.

However, there's an obvious difference between something like segregation - which legislation can deal with at almost no monetary or material cost - and this issue, where you're talking about hundreds of years' worth of buildings constructed with no regard for the disabled. Given that there are potentially hefty monetary costs involved, it makes sense for whatever modifications are needed to be phased in over as long and painless a period as possible.

Given that there are potentially hefty monetary costs involved, it makes sense for whatever modifications are needed to be phased in over as long and painless a period as possible.
This is exactly the sort of variance I was describing. Unfortunately, the author chose to state:all public buildings must have facilities for the mobiliity/visibility/hearing impared
That's why I don't like strident rules like this, and why I'm not supporting this proposal.

With the large number of UN-member psycopathic and despotic dictatorships that have currently gone on a frenzy of euthanizing their unwanted and undesireable citizens, The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint wonders how many of them still have disabled citizens that need the provisions of this proposal.

We see this as an issue best addressed by the individual nations.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affiars

Well, no. Private facilities (or rather, those running them) should not have the right to put anything they like on them. It would be extremely ill-advised for building to be coated in large spikes, gelatinous goo or ravenous killer monkeys that are a threat to passers by. OK, so I'm labouring the point somewhat...

Where you have the provision of essential services, it makes sense that they should be readily accessable. That's not unreasonable and not an infringement of the individual liberties that you care so deeply for, rather an extension of those liberties.

Regards

No. Equal rights means just that -- equal rights. "Rights" are guarantees that hte state will leave you alone on your own property, with your own body, etc. Everyone deserves that.

TGM: "No. Equal rights means just that -- equal rights. "Rights" are guarantees that hte state will leave you alone on your own property, with your own body, etc. Everyone deserves that."

I think this is a very limited view of what 'rights' constitute. Essentially, it seems that we have different views on what 'rights' are. Fair enough, it's another 'agree to disagree' situation.

I'm curious about something though. The libertarian view seems very much to favour the idea of allowing the market to dictate the course of events. Individual liberties are paramount. Corporations are free to do as they wish without state 'interference'. Now, many of us have debated this issue elsewhere. I and others like me do not believe that individuals are isolated beings who can be free to do what they wish because this naturally leads to them impinging on other individuals' liberties. Libertarianism is an inherently flawed concept if you agree with this argument. Putting that aside...how are strong corporate oligarchies of the type that you and others (Frisbeeteria, for example) advocate any different from a strong state? I don't see how liberties and rights can be preserved in this scenario? The corporate structures act almost as semi-dictatorial agents.

I may have misunderstood your reasoning so I would be very interested to read any responses you (or others) might wish to make.

Best wishes