NationStates Jolt Archive

(The proposal below has been revised and will be removed from the queue list as soon as a moderator receives my messages. Please see page 2 for a current proposal draft that debate is now occurring on farther on in the thread. Thank you to all whose suggestions have helped me make much needed improvements to this proposal.)

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.



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.

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 have 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, but requiring experts to serve on it should make this more palatable.

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

<snip resolution text>

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.
No they're not. American anti-discrimination laws don't apply here.
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.
Then don't submit a proposal mandating it. Clause 1 states that no discrimination can happen based on disability; no "reasonable" was involved in that clause. That includes discriminating on choice of jail cells.
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.
True. However, that's not what the proposal says.

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.
O.....kay.

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.
Good points.

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.
I wouldn't say any of those are "basic" although they are clearly desirable. Independence is certainly not, however: ever heard of socialism?
Clearly, if a nation is proposing burning the disabled, there's a need for greater protection.
Certainly.
Although there is already anti-discrimination protection for all people,
Where?
this resolution makes it all too clear that the disabled are first-class citizens to be treated as people, not objects or "invalids."
Actually, it says nothing about how they are to be treated in society (nor should it, however, so that's fine. :) )

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.
Meh. The committee is fine, but borderline useless.

Tarmsden, I like most of your ideas, but the resolution is just not workable. Ceorana will be voting nay on this resolution when it goes up for vote, unless another version is submitted and this is deleted.

Enrique Lopez
Assistant to the Deputy Undersecretary of State for UN Affairs.
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

I appreciate your comments. Let me return your shots, then, if we are to play ping-pong. Touché!

American anti-discrimination laws don't apply here, you're right. What I'm saying is, it's not like the mentally ill have been moved to general jail cells and phys ed classes haven't been banned, even though American law prohibits discrimination against the disabled. There is a spirit to every law, and, just as the spirit of gender equality laws in real life do not require unisex dressing rooms or dorm assignments, real life disability anti-discrimination laws are not the end of observation towers and other things that clearly cannot be made accessible to everyone. This is not to say that anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary.

As far as independence, even in socialist systems, the ability to make some decisions and live without being institutionalized is recognized. Independent living choices means not being a ward of the state or being treated as a non-human.

The reference to earlier anti-discrimination measures is referring to the Universal Bill of Rights, Fairness and Equality and other past resolutions here.

I believe this resolution is workable. I hope that others will also. I also hope to make you all more familiar with some of the options out there for the disabled. I'm logging off for the night, but I'll return soon. Happy debating!

American anti-discrimination laws don't apply here, you're right. What I'm saying is, it's not like the mentally ill have been moved to general jail cells and phys ed classes haven't been banned, even though American law prohibits discrimination against the disabled. There is a spirit to every law, and, just as the spirit of gender equality laws in real life do not require unisex dressing rooms or dorm assignments, real life disability anti-discrimination laws are not the end of observation towers and other things that clearly cannot be made accessible to everyone. This is not to say that anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary.
But those laws have provisions stating exceptions. This resolution's clause 1 explicitly states that no discrimination may take place on basis of disability, which bans keeping mentally ill in their own jail cells. I see no way to get around that through national discretion under this proposal. In the UN forum and elsewhere, it is generally accepted that the letter of the law must be followed.

As far as independence, even in socialist systems, the ability to make some decisions and live without being institutionalized is recognized. Independent living choices means not being a ward of the state or being treated as a non-human.
Meh, I suppose. It's still not a "basic" right though.
The reference to earlier anti-discrimination measures is referring to the Universal Bill of Rights, Fairness and Equality and other past resolutions here.
Neither of the resolutions mentioned mention, implicitly or explicitly, disability at all.

Enrique Lopez
Assistant to the Deputy Undersecretary of State for UN Affairs.
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

I'm not yet sure when I'll get a chance to properly address this proposal, but there is one thing I want to address.

National laws (RL and otherwise) are extremely complex documents spanning many pages. In comparison, all NSUN laws are extremely simple to the point that one has to be careful due to this very simplicity. National discrimination laws are massive articles with exceptions and indications of what purpose discrimination can pose and what purposes it can't. It is my understanding that the Discrimination Accord (UNR #99) took an extensive amount of time being drafted due to the sheer complexity of the issue it was undertaking.

Nations must interpret resolutions literally. We are required to comply with the letter of the law - not the intent. If it were the intent of the law we had to comply to, this would be an excellent resolution. Alas, it is the letter we are required to comply to.

This proposal, while standing a decent chance of being passed, is extremely dangerous as written as it does not discern between discrimination that's good for society (such as removing psychopaths from general population and instead putting them in an institute where they can get help) and discrimination that's bad for society (such as refusing to allow handicapped people to work in our UN offices).

Was the term "institutions" that's used in this clause
1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of discrimination in public buildings and institutions on the basis of their being disabled;
meant to include the public services, as it would logically seem to imply, meaning that those services would no longer be allowed to refuse employment to people who simply wouldn't be capable of performing the jobs involved properly? Some of St Edmund's 'human rights' lawyers (remember that we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship, unlike some of the other nations represented here: we can't just shoot them, tempting though the idea might be...) are already preparing cases in the hope of this proposal becoming law...

OOC: I'm considering invoking my 'assumption of appendices due to length constraints' policy here, in which case I'll support.

Some of St Edmund's 'human rights' lawyers (remember that we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship, unlike some of the other nations represented here: we can't just shoot them, tempting though the idea might be...) are already preparing cases in the hope of this proposal becoming law...
The bad press directed at human rights lawyers really irks me, but that's probably a discussion for another day.

[QUOTE=St Edmund]Was the term "institutions" that's used in this clause

meant to include the public services, as it would logically seem to imply, meaning that those services would no longer be allowed to refuse employment to people who simply wouldn't be capable of performing the jobs involved properly?


No. Discrimination is allowed still on the basis of capability to perform the involved task. That's nothing new. Discrimination is not allowed on the basis of DISABILITY. That is not the same as discrimination on the basis of LACK OF ABILITY. For example, some women are not hired as computer programmers. This is not gender discrimination, nor could it be argued to be. However, women who are capable of being computer programmers can still be hired. Similarly, if a disabled person is mentally unfit to hold a normal jail cell, they will not be placed in one. This is due to the effects of their disability, not the fact that they have a disability. There is a difference between discrimination because of a condition and the effects of that disability. The goal is to make employers make reasonable efforts, monitored by UNCAD, to employ the disabled, rather than just turning them away because they look, talk or walk differently.

No. Discrimination is allowed still on the basis of capability to perform the involved task. That's nothing new. Discrimination is not allowed on the basis of DISABILITY. That is not the same as discrimination on the basis of LACK OF ABILITY. For example, some women are not hired as computer programmers. This is not gender discrimination, nor could it be argued to be. However, women who are capable of being computer programmers can still be hired. Similarly, if a disabled person is mentally unfit to hold a normal jail cell, they will not be placed in one. This is due to the effects of their disability, not the fact that they have a disability. There is a difference between discrimination because of a condition and the effects of that disability.
That interpretation now opens up a huge loophole: businesses can deny some people with disabilities work as salespeople because they don't have the ability to look good. In fact, anyone can just add "look good" to the job description and they don't have to make any accommodations.
The goal is to make employers make reasonable efforts, monitored by UNCAD, to employ the disabled, rather than just turning them away because they look, talk or walk differently.
Funny, because there is no mention of employment anywhere in the proposal.

I have to agree with this draft because there are alot of courption floating around the nations government but i think we as a body need to enforce Un laws that are already on the books. Because nations tend to know that the united nations have laws on the books about courption but nations dont care.
Our duty as a body we have to keep a close watch on thoes who carry out courption in the nations governments. What ever wrong doing that is going on we need to let the people know about it. Because these leaders who commit courption have to serve there people. and it is not right for the leaders to commit wrong doing.. But i am going to close by saying this mesure i stand behind 100%

I have to agree with this draft because there are alot of courption floating around the nations government

OOC: Ahem!" Wrong thread...

Was the term "institutions" that's used in this clause

meant to include the public services, as it would logically seem to imply, meaning that those services would no longer be allowed to refuse employment to people who simply wouldn't be capable of performing the jobs involved properly?

No. Discrimination is allowed still on the basis of capability to perform the involved task. That's nothing new. Discrimination is not allowed on the basis of DISABILITY. That is not the same as discrimination on the basis of LACK OF ABILITY. For example, some women are not hired as computer programmers. This is not gender discrimination, nor could it be argued to be. However, women who are capable of being computer programmers can still be hired. Similarly, if a disabled person is mentally unfit to hold a normal jail cell, they will not be placed in one. This is due to the effects of their disability, not the fact that they have a disability. There is a difference between discrimination because of a condition and the effects of that disability. The goal is to make employers make reasonable efforts, monitored by UNCAD, to employ the disabled, rather than just turning them away because they look, talk or walk differently.

H'mm. Well the term 'public institutions' -- or its direct translation into Anglish, anyway) -- is often used in St Edmund (OOC: and, in English, in the RL UK...) to describe organisations such as the civil service, armed forces and Royal Mail, so if this proposal looks likely to get passed our government will probably have to rush through a law defining it as meaning just "government-controlled buildings & other fixed premises" for the purposes of disability-related legislation... and the difference between discrimination on the basis of DISABILITY and discrimination on the basis of lack of ABILITY, which isn't actually explained in that proposal, isn't one that I personally would like to have to defend in court...

OOC: I'm considering invoking my 'assumption of appendices due to length constraints' policy here

OOC: I've considered making that assumption too, from time to time, but it runs into the problem that as we aren't actually shown any such appendices it could lead to two or more nations roleplaying reaction to a particular resolution on the basis of contradictory assumptions about their actual contents...

the Palentine will be voting for this resolution for several OOC reasons that he does not propose to speak publicly about.

H'mm. Well the term 'public institutions' -- or its direct translation into Anglish, anyway) -- is often used in St Edmund (OOC: and, in English, in the RL UK...) to describe organisations such as the civil service, armed forces and Royal Mail, so if this proposal looks likely to get passed our government will probably have to rush through a law defining it as meaning just "government-controlled buildings & other fixed premises" for the purposes of disability-related legislation... and the difference between discrimination on the basis of DISABILITY and discrimination on the basis of lack of ABILITY, which isn't actually explained in that proposal, isn't one that I personally would like to have to defend in court...

In Ausserland, we do not judge people on the basis of disabilities when considering their employment -- which includes service in the military. We judge them on the basis of their ability to contribute to the accomplishment of the missions of the organization. Our Air Force includes a blind air commodore with extensive and extremely valuable expertise in air defense suppression techniques. The deputy commander of our Strategic Attack Missile Command is a brigadier who can only walk with the use of a cane, but is considered one of the finest administrators in our government.

We believe that disqualification from military or public service simply because a person had a disability would be to deny our government the ability to take advantage of a potentially valuable asset. And it would clearly violate the provisions of this proposal. Judging people on the basis of their abilities to perform required job functions is not discrimination; It's wise management. We would be more than happy to defend our policies in court.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

TThe 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.


Repeating a point that Sithya has raised before - show us the money. Smaller, poorer nations are not going to be able to afford the initial outlays involved. Furthermore, figures showing that this kind of investment will pay for itself need to be made clear and published. If this measure is going to lack either provision for the finance for this measure to be adopted, or an exception for nations that cannot afford it, Sithya will vote "No".

We also question the idea that 10-20% of the American populace is disabled, unless you are counting people who can't drive, people who can't sing except in the shower and people who have no fashion sense.

Let me make a few responses at once here:

"In Ausserland, we do not judge people on the basis of disabilities when considering their employment -- which includes service in the military. We judge them on the basis of their ability to contribute to the accomplishment of the missions of the organization."

First, Ausserland, thank you for a brilliant clarification of the difference between disability and inability to perform a job by defending your nation's policy of accepting blind and mobility-impaired military officers who are capable of strategizing and being tacticians. This is exactly what I mean when I say that there is inherit flexibility in the vast majority of laws and constitutions, so long as the spirit of non-discrimination is met. Let those who can work, work. For disabled people and non-disabled people, there will be those unable to perform a job. Maybe a disability will be a reason for not being able to perform said job. Maybe not. The point is, it should never be the sole grounds for refusing someone's contributions or willingness to contribute. Of course I don't mean to re-write the entire concept of hiring, by permitting the mentally disabled to hold jobs as physicists if they can't. However, the emphasis needs to be on that they do not meet job qualifications like knowledge or application of knowledge appropriately, not on the fact that they are disabled. Disability is not a grounds for discrimination, just like race, ethnicity, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. However, someone not capable of performing a job should not and will not be allowed to because of this proposal. There will be no amendment stating exceptions. The message is clear: the disabled CANNOT be discriminated against. I never said anything about the incapable or inappropriate being discriminated against.

Second, with regards to cost again. The UNCAD (the new committee that this resolution will create) exists to define what is, in the proposal's words, "reasonable" efforts at accessibility. The clause at the end of the resolution respecting national customs, traditions and other rights is meant to provide enough flexibility to the UNCAD to both provide ideas for low-cost solutions to nations and to give them time to carry this out, or to make exceptions as needed. They have the discretion to enforce this proposal, so they can negotiate over appropriate levels of access. It is simply unreasonable to imagine one proposal thoroughly addressing all discretionary questions. Hence the creation of a committee. I can't show you the money. I can show you a committee that will determine if you have the money or not, and if not, how you can find it.

Third, with regards to my assertion about the percentages of disabled Americans, this includes those whose disabilities may not be readily noticeable, such as developmental disabilities, learning disabilities and emotional disabilities. The exact number is not known due to some difficulties in diagnosing certain mental and learning disabilities, as well as social taboos revolving around them.

-Tarmsden

P.S. Cape Cod, corruption sucks. So does getting lost on the internet! Peace!

-Tarmsden

OOC: I've considered making that assumption too, from time to time, but it runs into the problem that as we aren't actually shown any such appendices it could lead to two or more nations roleplaying reaction to a particular resolution on the basis of contradictory assumptions about their actual contents...
OOC: Very fair point. It's a policy I adopted in 2004 but, now the UN members are so much more attentive, it's less viable, I feel.

And you've worried me, Palentine!

Sithya is extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a UN Committee determining how it is going to spend its budgets.

We are also unhappy with how the definition of disability is being extended into unclear numbers, as the representative has said. Given this, the committee's remit is going to be open-ended, and it will have power to tell governments how and what to spend its money on.

We regard this as very intrusive, and thus will vote No on the proposal as presently constituted.

"Sithya is extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a UN Committee determining how it is going to spend its budgets."

Your fears are well-founded. However, the resolution itself states that the 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." Also, it prohibits the Committee from using "excessively disregard...(towards) economic viability in the nations of the UN." It cannot set a nation's budget policies, just as no resolution can. There is a ban on UN taxation on nations, so it really can't override national economic policies. The UNCAD exists to prevent abuse of this resolution, both by governments that could be discriminatory and by those who would abuse the definition of disability and be excessive in their demands. It exists to provide clarity and protection, not intrusion.

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;


Do you all realise what other topic that's been raised recently this proposal covers? Given the very wide definition of "disability" that it uses, and the fact that clause '2' refers only to "People" rather than to "Living people"...


'UNDEAD RIGHTS'!

;)

Alright, gametime

The purpose of this thread is to encourage debate and discussion regarding the proposed “Rights of the Disabled” resolution, which appears here:

No need to encourage. Heck, we even started without you :p

Rights of the Disabled
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Tarmsden

Well, for a proposal that I don't feel spent enough time being drafted, at least you got both category and strength correct.

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);

The artificial line breaks are annoying. If you're going to make it a paragraph, let the system worry about formatting linebreaks. If you're going to make it two paragraphs, leave a space in between.

The wording is poor and you've actually created a loophole that basically ends one status of being disabled 12 months after they were disabled. You should've said "lasted for at least 12 months". As it is, this proposal offers zero protections past the 12th month.

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;

You started this line off with noting, yet you word it as a commandment. Illogical move. If you want it noting, your should use "should" instead of "are to". If you want a regulation, toss it beneath mandates. You have a legislative line in the preamble, poor design.

Hereby MANDATES that:

Good

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

Many people, including myself, have brought up the issue that discrimination is not always a bad thing. Designing a washroom stall specifically so that a wheelchair user is able to use it is a form of discrimination - otherwise we'd be forcing you to use the normal stalls like everyone else, since (afterall) you're asking to be treated as a normal person.

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;

I would actually not state the second as an exception. A disabled person, no matter how badly they've been disabled, should have a right to receive an equal education, even if he's not mentally capable of completing it. Instead, I would (in a seperate or the same clause) say that they have a right to additional education that helps them cope with their disabilities and become productive members of society in spite of the disability. A person who has been injured so that he's stuck in a wheel chair for the rest of his life probably needs a few pointers on how to move around and everything. Someone who was blinded mid-life certainly will need some help adjusting to the fact that he's now blind and should get a bit of education on adapting to his or her new lifestyle. Certainly, these are small levels of education in comparison to, say, the extensive special programs given to mentally handicapped children, but they too should be a right, and a right to be protected

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;

Bolded words should be deleted. No further issues with this clause

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

Questionable contradiction with 1, but otherwise fine.

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;

The voting technology doesn't exactly make sense to me in light of 4.

and that

Drop

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.

Make information? How do you make information?

Otherwise, no obvious disputes.

This proposal shall not be construed in any way to deny disabled persons access to any additional services provided by individual nations to them,

But we aren't allowed to discriminate in a manner that would help them.... 1 does take that away whether you claim it otherwise or not.

nor shall it be construed to excessively disregard cultures, traditions or economic viability in the nations of the UN.

Really, when a culture like Gruen holds a tradition that all disabled must die, and you put this forth, this line really has no purpose by this point of the resolution.

---------------------

As you can see, there are many editing problems and oversights with your proposal. If it gets to the floor, you won't have a chance to fix them. I strongly urge you to withdraw your proposal, redraft, and repropose. There is so much that can be improved on this and so many things that NEED to be improved on this. You are actually creating setbacks to the plight of the disabled rather than bolstering their rights globally.

You have just over 12 hours to withdraw your proposal before it gets to the floor. Take your chance to redraft it.

---------------------

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.

You used reasonable but once, and that was in creating access within buildings, not forms of discrimination.

Next, I am by no means a do-gooder.

Never thought otherwise

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.

Ok....

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.

Well put.

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."

While I agree with you, the very nature of these forums means that there are many disputes on what constitutes an International matter.

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.

So a random committee will decide what is reasonable so the people here can RP whatever resolution from the committee they want. Interesting choice.

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

I wish you'd withdraw it and implement some of these suggestions thus far in a future draft, because there are waaaaay too many problems for IndSovs to support this proposal and IntFeds probably will have difficulty supporting it while NatSovs wouldn't support a disable proposal unless there's a gun to their first-born's head.

---------------------

American anti-discrimination laws don't apply here, you're right. What I'm saying is, it's not like the mentally ill have been moved to general jail cells and phys ed classes haven't been banned, even though American law prohibits discrimination against the disabled. There is a spirit to every law, and, just as the spirit of gender equality laws in real life do not require unisex dressing rooms or dorm assignments, real life disability anti-discrimination laws are not the end of observation towers and other things that clearly cannot be made accessible to everyone. This is not to say that anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary.

The problem, as I said earlier, is that Americans have a true judiciary. Despite the fact that you have created a committee, we don't have a judiciary. We are required to follow to the explicit letter of this law and the letter of this law is actually more destructive than intended.

As far as independence, even in socialist systems, the ability to make some decisions and live without being institutionalized is recognized. Independent living choices means not being a ward of the state or being treated as a non-human.

.....not always, but fine.

The reference to earlier anti-discrimination measures is referring to the Universal Bill of Rights, Fairness and Equality and other past resolutions here.

You mean this one?

Resolution #26: Universal Bill of Rights
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

Recalling the many egregious infringements of human rights,

Recognizing the need to protect basic human rights,

Deploring any acts by government at the sake of human rights,

Determined to put an end to the violation of human rights,


The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.

Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.

Implemented: Fri Aug 8 2003

Or did you mean the RLUN Resolution of a similar title (probably the exact title you used). I note that RLUN != NSUN. All resolutions passed by them do not apply here. These are the basic set of rights. There's a variety of other discrimination resolutions, but the only other one closely relevant would be UNR #99, Discrimination Accord which fails to address, completely, the issue of disabilities.

I believe this resolution is workable. I hope that others will also. I also hope to make you all more familiar with some of the options out there for the disabled. I'm logging off for the night, but I'll return soon. Happy debating!

I think it is workable as a draft proposal. I think it is useless as a resolution, and because of the poor editing, I question whether it'll actually pass. Certainly, if it does pass, it probably won't survive long because there are obvious points to hit for repeal.

----------------------

Sithya is extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a UN Committee determining how it is going to spend its budgets.

That could apply to every committee ever created. Considering there is no UN budget.....

----------------------

Bah

We agree with the representative of Forgottenlands that there is a good amount of unfortunate wording in this proposal. We believe it would have benefited greatly from discussion here or in other forums prior to submission. There is one statement he makes, however, with which we cannot agree:



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);

The wording is poor and you've actually created a loophole that basically ends one status of being disabled 12 months after they were disabled. You should've said "lasted for at least 12 months". As it is, this proposal offers zero protections past the 12th month.


Where is the loophole? A disability lasts for 12 months; it is a qualifying disability under this proposal. A disability is "likely to last for more than 12 months or for the rest of your life;" it is a qualifying disability. Where in the proposal does it say that protection of the proposal ceases at 12 months? The clause says nothing about ending the status. It defines the conditions which establish it.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Forgottenlands,

I have just read your most recent post. After taking into considerations your points, as well as the points of many other delegates who have posted here in the past few days, I realize that many issues with this proposal can be fixed by a series of edits which I have made and posted below. I thank you for your contributions and will now have the proposal removed before it reaches the floor. I will propose the new, revised version of the resolution immediately, I will hope that this thread stays as the official channel for debate on said resolution and I look forward to seeing a more effective resolution implemented in the immediate future.

All the best,

-Tarmsden

The United Nations, noting that...

1) Disability is defined, for the purpose of this resolution, as a mental or physical impairment that has an adverse effect on one’s 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 at least 12 months, or is likely to last for more than 12 months or for the rest of one’s life);

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

Hereby MANDATES that:

1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of discrimination that prohibit them from fair and equal participation 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 as possible given the nature of their disability, including 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;

6) The UN Commission on Access for the Disabled (UNCAD) shall be created, consisting of medical professional, disability activists and other appropriate experts as determined by the UN, to make recommendations and information available 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.

You've made sure to ask the mods to delete your proposal? If so, well done, and I admire your ability to take on board constructive criticism.

My main continuing objection is the idea that UNCAD should "enforce the provisions of this proposal". We don't like the idea of UN inspectors looking round all our public buildings.

I just requested the removal via the FAQ "Need help?" section. Was this the most effective way? I realize now that changes were needed. Please feel free to continue to debate the revised proposal, however. Will I need to undergo another approval campaign and reach queue again, or will they simply make the minor changes and keep the approvals?

I just requested the removal via the FAQ "Need help?" section. Was this the most effective way?
Yes.

Will I need to undergo another approval campaign and reach queue again, or will they simply make the minor changes and keep the approvals?
No, the proposal will be removed, and you'll have to try again. However, as you're redrafting, you may get offers of help with the TGing.

I sure as heck hope so. I'll submit the new proposal as soon as the old one is gone. I'd truly appreciate any help with the TG campaign that comes from the nations who see this post. It sure is a lot of work! In my earlier telegrams, I emphasized my argument about the costs paying for themselves. Also, I copied the link to the proposal. Any other tips?

Thank you.

Don't submit the new one as soon as the old one is gone. I'd suggest waiting a day or so, to receive as many comments as possible. If the proposal looks reasonable, I for one would consider helping you send some TGs (I'm TGing for another proposal on Monday anyway).

Fair enough, I can wait a few days. I actually pasted the revised draft right above these messages on page 2. Check it out. I'd love to hear what you have to say about it.

We commend the Tarmsdenian delegation for withdrawing their proposal and working with the UN community to draft an improved version. We do need something like this, it just needs some editing.

So:
1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of discrimination that prohibit them from fair and equal participation in public buildings and institutions on the basis of their being disabled;
Could I suggest that this be revised to:

1) All disabled person shall be free from all forms of negativediscrimination in publicly accessible buildings and institutions on the basis of their being disabled, except in cases where said discrimination is strictly necessary due to the nature of the disability;

Good idea. I'll change it to:

"1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of negative discrimination in buildings and institutions open to the public on the basis of their being disabled, except in cases where said discrimination is strictly necessary due to the nature of the disability;"

How does that sound?

Proposal deleted on request of author.

Here's the final Approval list, for convenience:Approvals: 189 (Tarmsden, Palentine UN Office, ShivaShiva, Upper Ramsbottom, Neo Tyros, WarDuck, Anfalsanth, Firebert, Gaiah, Deanre Strake, SPASTIC COLON, Richard2008, Apocalypston, Pacifistic Orators, Pauli the Great, Legion IX, Noconservitism, United Tessata, All Things Halo, Petisolandia, Powderland, SocialistRepublica, Laurinians, Gunfreak, Ronrovia, Faerie-Sprite, Ternovia, Bladela, Agramerland, Esbam, Free Happiness States, OCR, Republic of Freedonia, Linux and the X, Zingatan, Ahsmenistan, Zaraites, Trumpwick Green, Voicetrack, Ferristoya, Athens and Midlands, Face Invaders, Lygonia, Adolf Barham, Brozvakia, Marjatta, BlamePhil, Darpatia, Hanzistantopia, Taeguki, Nordur, Sparksalot, Blackbird, Frei fur Allem, Anitsilas, Liu Chu, Korinekia, Proya, Bellaben, Manussa, Naples and Italy, Cadburybars, Christs Followers, Vampire Piggies, Carilsee, Kapellen, Trutonia, D4rk 3mpire, Iena, Versalia, Chandelier, The Christiania, Qinqe, New Old New New York, Kamikastan, Asablam, Omskakas, Cornbread Fanatics, Elletania, America---, Jagerbombmonia, MammothUnisys, Carlswelt, Isochronous, TePsa, Elghinn, Spaz Land, Jellydom, Fozziebearia, Dangereux Bay, Snafuna, The Killer Snowmen, DragonSpeartopia, Wondonia, Killer Ninja Monkeys, Caraz, Fieving Chav Scum, Noua Romanie, South Bixxaver, Zasavje org, Haapalinna, Akmal, MacPhoenix Apostacy, The United Homosapians, Ginash, Egalitarians, Cherupia, Dizziness, Leicnin, Fenbeans, Clarinettic Geeks, Quamlingus, Belarum, Gahinas, ElJefe, Gyunwap, Uduwudu, Dragoon Empire III, Regius, Battousai567, Ardidi, Singring, Hayden Island, Raving Zealots, Panaxia, Rasla, Treblatas, Naughtyham, New Hamilton, Baudrillard, Zadania, Uhl, Merinium, Maxovia, Puebloville, Errinundera, Mr God, Sheltectain, Silverbowia, Tolene, Randomplaceland, Worldia555, Kirigakure Shinobi, Sand And Dispair, TheDanielRecord, So1idus, Azuni, Hermanian, Wootelania, Erissia, Nhunya, Dez2, Kunkindo, Dmaster_chief, Brunelian BG advocates, Botim, Ultravibe, Jimbonesia, Defenestratium, Pugonia, Wolfhawk, D41k57, Technopolis2000, Miketopea, The Phi-An-Tum, Cape Cod Hanes Port, All newbs, Five Rivers, Morirasal, Cochim, Eve the First, Quaon, Cire Nallehs, Oklahomasooners, Syed, Gold Griffin, Novalis and Nicktown, Barben, NewTexas, Lnferno, ASN, Passionate Peoples, Staplespoon, Prickles, Grendiland, Montyclifford, 666666666, The Shoe Maker, Maineiacs)

Very decent of you, Tarmsden. Best of luck with the new draft.