NationStates Jolt Archive

Noticed lack of any debate over this proposal. Thought I'd add a topic.

Rights of the Disabled
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Tarmsden

Description: The United Nations, noting that...

1) Disability is defined, for the purpose of this resolution, as a mental or physical impairment
this has an adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities as long as the adverse effect is substantial and the adverse effect is long-term (meaning it has lasted for 12 months, or is likely to last for more than 12 months or for the rest of your life);

2) People with physical, mental and developmental disabilities are fully entitled to participate fully in all societies and are to be guaranteed full and equal rights;

Hereby MANDATES that:

1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of discrimination in public buildings and institutions on the basis of their being disabled;

2) All disabled persons shall have the right to an education comparable to that of their non-disabled peers, the exception being where limitations require a special education program that can teach necessary life skills;

3) All disabled persons shall have the right to be as independent is as possible given the nature of their disability, and that this includes independent living, community-based living or group homes that provide a sense of dignity to the person with a disability;

4) All public buildings shall make a reasonable effort to provide access to their facilities for people with disabilities;

5) All disabled persons shall have access to relevant health care and assistive technology that could increase their independence and productivity, including accessible voting technology and workplace technology where applicable;

and that

6) The UN Commission on Access for the Disabled (UNCAD) shall be created to make recommendations and information regarding the disabled and integration of the disabled into society available to nations, organizations and individuals that request it, as well as to enforce the provisions of this proposal.

This proposal shall not be construed in any way to deny disabled persons access to any additional services provided by individual nations to them, nor shall it be construed to excessively disregard cultures, traditions or economic viability in the nations of the UN.

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

2) People with physical, mental and developmental disabilities are fully entitled to participate fully in all societies and are to be guaranteed full and equal rights;


Since 'People' already have those rights under other resolutions then why do we need to single out one group and give them those rights they already have as 'people'? If 'people' don't have some rights then why should we give this group them before all 'people' get them?

1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of discrimination in public buildings and institutions on the basis of their being disabled;
This clause is completely unacceptable. This actually requires that our public buildings must either not give people with disabilities helping services at all, or offer them to everyone (imagine a hospital having to provide wheelchairs to every person who requested one). You may call to my attention the last clause, but that only applies to nations providing those services, not other institutions. This clause also bans most physical education classes (perhaps just if there is a person w/ a disability in the class) because they might not be able to participate, and therefore, since they would be free from discrimation, the teacher could not discrimate for/against them, so the entire class would have a right to sit out.

ooc: Paralympics not come to mind?

Son of a bitch; didn't think this one will make it. Hmm. This would be problematic in Gruenberg.

1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of discrimination in public buildings and institutions on the basis of their being disabled;Show one current resolution that leaves out disabled persons in what it might give any person and then maybe disavled persons need additional consideration. As long as they are persons then they have equal rights under current proposals.. Thus this is not needed until all persons have the same rights as one might give only to disabled persons in this proposal.

2) All disabled persons shall have the right to an education comparable to that of their non-disabled peers, the exception being where limitations require a special education program that can teach necessary life skills;Again there are no clauses in any current resolution that provided for education for persons excluding any disabled persons from that education. Here you may be amending any by stating a way around it that excludes disabled person from an education.

3) All disabled persons shall have the right to be as independent is as possible given the nature of their disability, and that this includes independent living, community-based living or group homes that provide a sense of dignity to the person with a disability;Here you take the power of governments to establish housing projects for citizens of their nation and put them in these. As you single out disabled citizens to have something even healthy citizens don't get in some nations.

4) All public buildings shall make a reasonable effort to provide access to their facilities for people with disabilities;I love the word 'REASONABLE' all I have to do is widen a few toilet stalls and replace steps with ramps and that is a 'reasonable effort' on my part.

5) All disabled persons shall have access to relevant health care and assistive technology that could increase their independence and productivity, including accessible voting technology and workplace technology where applicable;They get what all persons in a nation get as far as health care.. On voting if the healthy don't vote why should disabled vote? Here we want all our citizens to work and support themselves as much as possible and not be a burden on the rest of society so we provide workplaces for all our citizens based on what they can do. To not do this means they are on welfare and a burden on our working citizens. Also to become a citizen they must contribute something to the nation. No matter how small it may be to some.


"that provide a sense of dignity" creating special conditions for disabled persons don't help them it moves them out of society instead of makes them a part of society. So how are you providing them with a sense of dignity?

A lot of disabled folks I've meet say that it not their disablity that bothers them it the disablity of the people they meet that does. As healthy folks see them as helpless thus treat them that way when they aren't.. all they need is the do-gooders to let them alone.

This is a topic that should be left for national legislation.

This proposal would, as others here have already pointed out, guarantee rights to the 'disabled' that some nations within the UN currently don't grant to the rest of their nationals.

Clauses 1 & 2 arguably could arguably be invoked (by the civil rights lobby) to try blocking even reasonable discrimination that was based on whether the disabled people concerned could actually perform certain roles: If hospitals are 'public buildings', for example, clause 1 could force the authorities to let a surgeon who'd developed a serious case of the shakes continue carrying out operations despite the risk to patients' lives...

Of more use would be guidelines for accommodation of the disabled on transport. At least that's an international issue.

Hereby MANDATES that:

1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of discrimination in public buildings and institutions on the basis of their being disabled;

2) All disabled persons shall have the right to an education comparable to that of their non-disabled peers, the exception being where limitations require a special education program that can teach necessary life skills;

3) All disabled persons shall have the right to be as independent is as possible given the nature of their disability, and that this includes independent living, community-based living or group homes that provide a sense of dignity to the person with a disability;

4) All public buildings shall make a reasonable effort to provide access to their facilities for people with disabilities;

5) All disabled persons shall have access to relevant health care and assistive technology that could increase their independence and productivity, including accessible voting technology and workplace technology where applicable;


Question: who is going to pay for this? Sithya is not in a position to ask its private sector, which provides the bulk of our strength, to bear the burden of these costs. Other less well off nations are not going to have the funds to comply with this mandate either. Are the larger, richer nations going to be happy to pay for this?

Sithya will vote "Yes", provided that grants are forthcoming, otherwise, sorry, but it's not affordable.

Of more use would be guidelines for accommodation of the disabled on transport. At least that's an international issue.

I'd argue that anything which affects a broad group which transends national boarders could be considered an international issue. Not sure this resolution is the right way to go, as it appears a step towards positive descrimination.

Will this stop us burning them?

Question: who is going to pay for this?.If they have the ability to do some form of work and thus earn an income and produce something for the society then they need to have that chance just as anyone would. Not all disabled persons are poor... this is another view of them that is wrong just as the view that they can't contribute anything to a society.

Consider that today disabled serve the military and defend their nations, maybe not directly into combat but provide other support that allows those going into combat to come home alive. Thus to exclude them you are wasting a resource that could well advance your nation to a greater level than any so called heathy person might. So don't see this as a problem with this proposal if you treat disabled persons as you do anyone else and give them what they need to perform to help better the society instead of make them a burden to it.

Will this stop us burning them?Probably not but if they feel pain and are therefore animals there is one up that might stop it. Called:Animal Rights --- Definition of Animal: any living creature believed capable of feeling physical pain and/or psychological distress. As it deals with them as animals...

If they have the ability to do some form of work and thus earn an income and produce something for the society then they need to have that chance just as anyone would. Not all disabled persons are poor... this is another view of them that is wrong just as the view that they can't contribute anything to a society.

Consider that today disabled serve the military and defend their nations, maybe not directly into combat but provide other support that allows those going into combat to come home alive. Thus to exclude them you are wasting a resource that could well advance your nation to a greater level than any so called heathy person might. So don't see this as a problem with this proposal if you treat disabled persons as you do anyone else and give them what they need to perform to help better the society instead of make them a burden to it.Another valid RL example would be Stephen Hawking. Sure, he's probably only famous because of his condition, but he has certainly contributed.

OOC
Sure, he's probably only famous because of his condition
Yeah, screw his being one of the most brilliant minds of his generation - I bought his book 'cos he was in a wheelchair.

ooc. mathematical theoretician. I hate how people call him a scientist.
Brilliant at numbers, not so good at common sense. Your nurse beats you? You don't marry her.

OOC: I always thought the field of mathematics was a "science."

OK: Back to the resoltion. I have a few mixed opinions on the resolution itself (not the subject matter however). The wording of the resolution is actually quite mild, considering that it is a strength "Significant" proposal. Reasonable effort at public access is probably too mild and there is no attempt for the private sector. (Note to Zeldon wheelchair access may seem to be the most obvious modification, but there are a lot of implications to making something accessable for blind and deaf people.)

All in all I think this is a good resolution. It could be better, but it snuck up on us all in secret. All things considered I would vote to approve this resolution.

ooc: science is put forward as a theory, then it's tested through experiments. If it can't be tested, it's not science.

Question: who is going to pay for this? Sithya is not in a position to ask its private sector, which provides the bulk of our strength, to bear the burden of these costs. Other less well off nations are not going to have the funds to comply with this mandate either. Are the larger, richer nations going to be happy to pay for this?

Sithya will vote "Yes", provided that grants are forthcoming, otherwise, sorry, but it's not affordable.

Ginet agrees with the spirit of this resolution, but we share Sithya's concerns. We are not a rich nation, and though we try to build our newer structures with accesability in mind, we have many older buildings that are not very accesable. We cannot afford to modify all of them.

OOC

Yeah, screw his being one of the most brilliant minds of his generation - I bought his book 'cos he was in a wheelchair.You've missed my point.

Well explain it then.

Well explain it then.

How many mathematicians - no matter how brilliant - does the average person know about?

I can think of one other in the past century off the top of my head.

I can think of one other in the past century off the top of my head.Nash? Eh. I'm more familiar with physicists.

Anyway, I don't know about you all, but I only know him because he's a cyborg:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/onion_news2070.jpg

Well explain it then.I believe FL and hack have illustrated my point better than I could ;)

Hooray. More bloody micromanagement. How long before this garbage hits the floor?

OOC: But I don't think Hawking is simply famous because of his condition. He's often claimed to have written "the least read bestseller ever" - in reference to the fact that A Brief History of Time sold so well, but was so complex most people didn't read much of it. I agree he has earned a degree of publicity on account of his condition, but I don't by any means think that's exclusively the reason for it.

OOC: But I don't think Hawking is simply famous because of his condition. He's often claimed to have written "the least read bestseller ever" - in reference to the fact that A Brief History of Time sold so well, but was so complex most people didn't read much of it. I agree he has earned a degree of publicity on account of his publicity, but I don't by any means think that's exclusively the reason for it.

I know movie starts get publicity on account of their publicity, but I have a feeling that wasn't what you meant.

Anyways, Hawking would've done well as a mathematician with or without his condition and been well recognized within the scientific community. However, the average person probably wouldn't've cared. He became important to the non-math/science world because of his disability - which is why his book was the least-read bestseller - if it had been those within the scientific community, they would've read it. But his popularity made it so that people who don't care about the scientific community were buying his book. That isn't because he's a genius. You can argue whether it's because of his condition but there's no real alternate, logical explaination.

I know movie starts get publicity on account of their publicity, but I have a feeling that wasn't what you meant.
Erk, I meant "condition" for the second "publicity".

I got a little side tracked following the Hawking stuff (theoretical physicist, BTW), so I'm just gonna start at the beginning.


A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Description: The United Nations, noting that...

1) Disability is defined, for the purpose of this resolution, as a mental or physical impairment this has an adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities as long as the adverse effect is substantial and the adverse effect is long-term (meaning it has lasted for 12 months, or is likely to last for more than 12 months or for the rest of your life);

I don't know that the duration is necessary. Disabled is disabled. Temporarily disabled people are still disabled, they'll just get better. Whatever.

2) People with physical, mental and developmental disabilities are fully entitled to participate fully in all societies and are to be guaranteed full and equal rights;

Debatable. Paranoid schitzophrenics prone to psychotic breaks are considered as mentally disabled. They aren't really entitled to much other than government sponsored chemical lobotomies to control their behaviour.

Hereby MANDATES that:

1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of discrimination in public buildings and institutions on the basis of their being disabled;

See my schitzo reference above. I seem to remember someone mentioning phys ed class as well. Yes, there are the paralympics, but not all disabled are capable of competing as a result of their disability.

2) All disabled persons shall have the right to an education comparable to that of their non-disabled peers, the exception being where limitations require a special education program that can teach necessary life skills;

An education commensurate with their capacity would not be out of line. There are those for whom it isn't realistic that they will even pick up rudimentary life skills, though. Optimistic, but naive.

3) All disabled persons shall have the right to be as independent is as possible given the nature of their disability, and that this includes independent living, community-based living or group homes that provide a sense of dignity to the person with a disability;

Fair enough.

4) All public buildings shall make a reasonable effort to provide access to their facilities for people with disabilities;

Reasonable. That word saves this clause. It would not be reasonable to make some of our public lookout towers accessible for quadripeligics (sp?).

5) All disabled persons shall have access to relevant health care and assistive technology that could increase their independence and productivity, including accessible voting technology and workplace technology where applicable;

No issues at this time.

and that

6) The UN Commission on Access for the Disabled (UNCAD) shall be created to make recommendations and information regarding the disabled and integration of the disabled into society available to nations, organizations and individuals that request it, as well as to enforce the provisions of this proposal.

Good lord, another commitee. We keep our UN gnomes well fed (they like White Rhino Steaks done medium rare). It doesn't hurt, but I don't see the necessity.

This proposal shall not be construed in any way to deny disabled persons access to any additional services provided by individual nations to them, nor shall it be construed to excessively disregard cultures, traditions or economic viability in the nations of the UN.

Nice touch.

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Oh dear.

ooc: science is put forward as a theory, then it's tested through experiments. If it can't be tested, it's not science.

NO. You are confusing science with scientific method.

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

Compare with the definition of art

1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>


How many mathematicians - no matter how brilliant - does the average person know about?

Well don't expect anything like the philosopher's drinking song, but I'd wagre most would know of Pascal. M5 gurus love Lagrange. Euclid is hated by many. Computer guys know of Fourier and Babbage.

ooc: Ok, as the daughter of a chemist, I'll rephrase that.
'Pure' scientists believe scientific theories are testible and have to be tested before they become science as opposed to mathematical theory.

ooc: Ok, as the daughter of a chemist, I'll rephrase that.
'Pure' scientists believe scientific theories are testible and have to be tested before they become science as opposed to mathematical theory.

Man

Could you imagine the number of physicists, astronomers, and so many other fields that deal with everything from quarks to some of the stranger aspects of quantom mechanics would no longer be considered scientists under that definition?

We wish a draft of this proposal had been posted here before submission. We believe that some of the valid objections that have been raised might have been eliminated by relatively minor revisions.

The government of Ausserland believes this is clearly an area affecting basic human rights. It would definitely enhance the ability of the disabled to exercise those rights elsewhere established. We believe the subject to be one which is quite proper for the NSUN to address.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I do actually think it's fair game for disabled rights to be addressed - their exclusion from all the other UN anti-discrimination legislation has always bothered me - but I don't think Gruenberg will be supporting this proposal. However, I do have a question:

Can anyone identify realistic, obvious examples of where this could lead to a great problem? I don't consider having to install wheelchair ramps in a few museums a great problem - but the definition of mental disability, and lack of definition of discrimination, makes me wonder about jails.

EDIT: In fact, would warding off mentally-ill patients to a separate prison wing not now be barred?

If it can be shown by repeatable experiments, what's to dispute?
If it can't, it's theoretical. The majority of science as you define it is included.
Astronomy isn't theoretical, it's proveable. Things like red shift can be duplicated. But when you start theorising if the universe is composed of strings...then you're talking mathematics.

Noticed lack of any debate over this proposal. Thought I'd add a topic.
These rights are already protected. I told the telegram campaigner that. I will not vote for a redundant proposal.

I just realized that this had been posted as a discussion topic, and I, as the author of the proposal, am sincerely sorry that I have not posted sooner. Two major debates seem to be going on here. I can't add to the one about Stephen Hawking, theoretical mathematics and advanced physics. Good God, people. I can certainly explain the proposal, however.

First, there have been many arguments regarding the feasibility of ending discrimination against people with disabilities, i.e. mental institutions, physical education classes, etc. What you may not realize is that the disabled are already protected under American anti-discrimination laws. Governments maintain real, orderly societies by using the same logic that applies to anti-gender discrimination laws and restrooms. There are simply some cases when "reasonable" needs to be applied logically. I would never dream of the mentally depraved being in the same jail cell as the sane. However, the disabled must be protected from discrimination in what they can do. The discrimination needs to be, truly, on the basis of ability, not on the basis of an impairment.

Next, I am by no means a do-gooder. I am an American who has spent his entire life in a wheelchair and knows many disabled people of all walks of life and political persuasions. However, I have seen far too many disabled people "funneled" into segregated schools and instantly institutionalized without any thought given to the fact that, just because they use a wheelchair, they can live independently. I do not intend on ever living as a ward of the state; I am a free person. However, I stressed the need for community and group housing as is necessary to ensure that no dangerous individuals with serious emotional disabilities become a threat to society. I am calling for the dignity of a person to live with as much independence as possible, even though that obviously requires aids, supervision and, in rare cases, institutionalization.

The cost factor certainly came to mind and has been a sticking point for a while now. However, the disabled themselves will pay for the articles of this resolution by becoming active taxpayers, customers and employees. The disabled make up 10-20% of America's general populace and have the potential to be active and contributing members of the community. In my state, the Bureau of Rehabilitation Services is the ONLY state agency that provides revenue. It may spend $100,000 adapting a van for a wheelchair-user, but that individual then pays $300,000 in taxes by working for years at a job they can reach with the use of the van. Adaptations in accessible design have been proven to increase worker productivity, reduce fatigue and produce better workplace results for employees with and without disabilities. Creative application of these ideas can truly make this resolution workable.

Questions have also been raised regarding whether this is an international issue and whether it is redundant to prohibit discrimination against the disabled. This is an international issue by virtue of its being a human rights issue. This protects basic rights to dignity, independence and productivity. Clearly, if a nation is proposing burning the disabled, there's a need for greater protection. Although there is already anti-discrimination protection for all people, this resolution makes it all too clear that the disabled are first-class citizens to be treated as people, not objects or "invalids."

There are also some doubts about creating another committee for the UN. While I generally despise bureaucracy and the problems it creates, especially for the disabled, there are questions, obviously, about what is "reasonable" for accessibility, what is defined as a disability (the definition I used is the federal government's definition, FYI) and what should be expected from anti-discrimination efforts. I believe it is an unfortunate necessity that has to be included in this resolution.

I'm sorry that I didn't post this here earlier. Your comments and criticisms have been a great help, and I sincerely thank you. Let's continue to debate this, and please feel free to telegram me with further comments and questions.

Your humble servant,

-Tarmsden

P.S. Stephen Hawking was one of the first to provide strong theoretical information on black holes. If he's famous for his condition, Britney Spears is famous for her voice!

What you may not realize is that the disabled are already protected under American anti-discrimination laws.

Please remember that RL =/= UN. You've described your stance well, though please in the future don't rely so heavily on RL burdens that would be assisted by your resolution.

Now that your here, let me know if you want to begin your own official topic, as the author of the proposal. If you want to, I'll ask the mods to lock this and remove the official topic tag.

Fair enough. I don't know any stats on the number of disabled in NationStates though, so I tried to use what I know. Could you please lock this and start an official thread? I'd like to see my post as the first as I feel it's introductory and could answers questions before they're asked.

When will the new thread be ready?

Just start it :p I suggest putting [official topic] (without the question mark as seen in this one) otherwise people will start getting confused.

Jey, perhaps a request to rename this and send it to general so we can finish our offtopic argument...that is, if we haven't all finished. I'm not sure what more there is to say as it'll be just a statement of opinions as opposed to a debate (guilty) but someone might have something new.

Jey, I started a new thread. Can you please have the mods mark it as official?

Thank you.

Jey, I started a new thread. Can you please have the mods mark it as official?

Thank you.

I've sent a request to the mods to lock my topic, remove the offical tags, and place the tags on your topic.

I also just sent my own request to the webmaster (was that the appropriate place?). Will it be done soon?

I also just sent my own request to the webmaster (was that the appropriate place?). Will it be done soon?

Forum-related moderation requests should be placed in the Moderation Forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231). You'll find my request on the top of the non-stickied topics.

Response time for moderation requests varies depending on whether the mods are currently on. It could take anywhere from afew minutes to an hour or two.

I'm logging off for the night, but happy debating on the new thread. Thanks for your help!

If it can be shown by repeatable experiments, what's to dispute?
If it can't, it's theoretical. The majority of science as you define it is included.
Astronomy isn't theoretical, it's proveable. Things like red shift can be duplicated. But when you start theorising if the universe is composed of strings...then you're talking mathematics.

Let's see.....

Dark Matter
Dark Energy
Big Bang Theory
Formation of Stars and Planets

Heck - there's a theory about how much water Earth should have based upon the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.

It's all mathematics, it's all part of astronomy, and they all are scientists with their findings reported in Scientific journals and magazines. There are portions of just about every field that's heavily based in mathematics because they have not found the ability to test it.

It is a breed of arrogance that lends itself to the concept that mathematics isn't a form of science. It would be like Compardia and me saying we're the only true IntFeds because the moderate IntFeds are willing to grant nations some rights.