NationStates Jolt Archive

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 negative discrimination in 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;

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.

This is the second thread on this proposal. There was an earlier version that actually reached queue, but a number of extremely valid arguments were raised in forum debate that required me to withdraw the proposal and make necessary edits. Now, I am submitting a new draft here for criticism and comments for a little while. I'd love to resubmit it to the UN soon, and I'd greatly appreciate your questions and debate here. Thank you.

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.

Your comments and criticisms already 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

My main concerns remain:

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;
I'd like it more clearly stated that we don't have to provide this. Socialised medicine is not a requirement of UN nations, and if we are to defeat discrimination, we should extend this to accepting that such healthcare and assistive technology are subject to the same principles of healthcare for all other persons.

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.
So long as we do not have to allow UNCAD onto our sovereign territory, fine.

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.

Sithya finds this way too vague - who funds this commission? What enforcement powers do they have? What right of appeal do individual nations have against their judgements?

This needs to be spelled out in detail before we'll even consider voting for it.

Sithya is very concerned by the general trend at the UN to dictate how nations run their internal affairs, rather than trying to manage affairs between nations - but that's a general observations.

Gruenberg, glad to be debating you on two issues now. You are a worthy competitor, whether we agree or not. If I change the article on tech and healthcare to:

"5) All disabled persons shall have access to relevant health care and assistive technology comparable to that received by other, non-disabled citizens, in addition to that which could increase their own independence and productivity, including accessible voting technology and workplace technology where available to non-disabled citizens or required to assure equal participation in political and economic life for the disabled;",

will it resolve your issues? I don't want to deny the disabled access to tech and healthcare they need that others don't, however.

As far as UNCAD goes, I agree that it could use some work. It needs to be an advisory and enforcement committee that, like all the others, can provide clarity, interpretation, enforcement and mediation. Can anyone make any suggestions on how to word this better? I don't want to write too much on it, especially as there are already plenty of other functioning committees dealing with other resolutions. I'm open to suggestions here.

If I change the article on tech and healthcare to:
--snip--
will it resolve your issues? I don't want to deny the disabled access to tech and healthcare they need that others don't, however.
That is fine by me.

As far as UNCAD goes, I agree that it could use some work. It needs to be an advisory and enforcement committee that, like all the others, can provide clarity, interpretation, enforcement and mediation. Can anyone make any suggestions on how to word this better? I don't want to write too much on it, especially as there are already plenty of other functioning committees dealing with other resolutions. I'm open to suggestions here.
Yes, don't put too much detail on the committee: as much as anything, doing so runs risks legality wise.

All I'm worried about is the idea that the UN would be sending inspection teams to our public buildings to ensure compliance. Rather than saying "enforce the provisions", perhaps you could say "provide aid to requestion nations in meeting the requirements"?

OK. Thank you. I'll change the UNCAD article to:

"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 in order to meet the proposal's requirements."

Is that a good compromise? I think it establishes UNCAD as an advisory committee while still providing some means of enforcement for the resolution, just like other resolutions have.

We're puzzled by sections 1 and 4 under the "MANDATES" heading. Section 1 speaks to "buildings and institutions." Then section 4 addresses "buildings" again. We think we understand that section 4 requires reasonable accommodation in access, which we support 100%. But now we don't know what section 1 is trying to accomplish. An explanation would be appreciated.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Currently, this seems like a resonable proposition. I'm still a bit concerned about it's affect on economies, but for the most part it does seem fair.

Perhaps UNCAD could donate funds they may raise to nations in need of money to build disability access to public buildings? Or would that be too much to ask?

Azazel Diener
Leader of the Dominion of Teufelanbetung
Join the Region of Logic and Cooperation today! (http://www.nationstates.net/56576/page=display_region)

"1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of negative discrimination in 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;"

This should make the proposal less redundant. I think having UNCAD authorized to give funds would be a little much, especially as most committees can't do this, the UN has no funding beyond basic donations and voluntary money as it is. If the UN chooses to give UNCAD funding, fine, but I'm not going to contribute to more bureaucratic crap.

Thank you again for your excellent comments. I'm going to re-propose now. I'll need help with the TG campaign from all who are willing. Let's get this thing back to queue, up on the floor and passed!

We support the latest draft.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

We have asked our regional delegate to add an approval. We believe this to be an excellent proposal, richly deserving of consideration by this Assembly.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ariddia finds no fault with this. We support.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Gruenberg will probably support this now.

OOC: Tarmsden, you need a hand with TGing?

So long as the commission created by this proposal has solely an advisory role, as this draft indicates, we will support.

This draft isn't changing now, unless mind-boggling circumstances arise. I need some serious help with the TG campaign right now, due to other things outside of the game that are taking up some of my time.

It would be greatly appreciated.

This draft isn't changing now, unless mind-boggling circumstances arise. I need some serious help with the TG campaign right now, due to other things outside of the game that are taking up some of my time.

It would be greatly appreciated.
Well, who do you want TGed?

I would like, of course, as many delegates TG'd as possible. I'll take care of as many as I can. I'll post the list of delegates who supported the initial proposal below. If you can maybe start going through the approval lists and sending TGs to those delegates who have approvals on current proposals, I can start with delegates who have voted on the current issue.

Thank you yet again for your help.

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)

I would like, of course, as many delegates TG'd as possible. I'll take care of as many as I can. I'll post the list of delegates who supported the initial proposal below. If you can maybe start going through the approval lists and sending TGs to those delegates who have approvals on current proposals, I can start with delegates who have voted on the current issue.

Thank you yet again for your help.
Right, but if we TG the same delegate more than once, that would be spamming. I need to know who you've TGed, so I can telegram different people.

OK. I'm working on those who have voted on the current resolution on the general floor, "Patient Rights Act."

I think having UNCAD authorized to give funds would be a little much, especially as most committees can't do this, the UN has no funding beyond basic donations and voluntary money as it is. If the UN chooses to give UNCAD funding, fine, but I'm not going to contribute to more bureaucratic crap.

Very well. I wasn't sure if committees had any funding powers.

The Dominion of Teufelanbetung will also support this proposal.

Azazel Diener
Leader of Teufelanbetung
Join the Region of Logic and Cooperation today! (http://www.nationstates.net/56576/page=display_region)

I wrote a proposal ages ago that would compliment this one nicely, and go a long way to solving the funding problem. This link is just for information, I don't want to discuss my proposal here and now. Maybe later after Tarmsden's makes quorum.

Disabled Care Accreditation Act (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=24).

Tarmsden, I like your proposal and will vote for it once it hits the floor :).

We're dismayed to note that this excellent proposal has only gathered 56 approvals to this point. Surely it deserves to be brought before this assembly for a vote.

Approval Link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=Disabled)

B.U.M.P.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Thank you very much for the convenient link. I'm trying really hard to telegram just about every delegate I can. I've telegrammed quite a few already. Can someone please telegram those delegates who have voted against the Patient Rights Act? I need help.

Thank you once again for your undying support, Ausserland!

For anyone interested, here's the TG I've been sending out like a mad postal worker:

"I would like to take a moment to call to your attention a proposal that I have re-submitted guaranteeing the rights of the disabled to be productive and independent members of society. It was proposed once and reached queue status, although I withdrew it in order to make needed changes based on forum debate. It requires anti-discrimination efforts, independent living options as are reasonable, efforts at building accessibility and other steps needed to help the disabled be active members of the community. The costs for accessible equipment are relatively low as far as building modifications go, and more expensive renovations would pay for themselves as the disabled, who make up 10-20% of the general populace, become effective workers, customers and taxpayers. Here’s the link:

http://www.nationstates.net/08794/page=UN_proposal/proposal=9

Please take a moment and vote for this proposal to secure basic dignity and equal rights for the disabled.

Sincerely yours, and I apologize if you’ve received this message more than once,

-Tarmsden (a wheelchair-user)"

Thank you very much for the convenient link. I'm trying really hard to telegram just about every delegate I can. I've telegrammed quite a few already. Can someone please telegram those delegates who have voted against the Patient Rights Act? I need help.


Good luck, Love and esterel support your action

Sorry, I don't have the courage to send tg, but if you want to dedoublon a list of delegate "to be contacted" from a list "already contacted", let me know, I can provide a clickable html dedoublonned list.

I've given my deligate a polite kick in the bottom on the issue.

Kicking bottoms: good.

New telegram strategy: Tarmsden will now TG delegates that approved of the first draft of the proposal. Hope it works!

All nations who approved the first draft have been telegrammed at least once. I will resume telegramming delegates who have voted in favor of "Patient Rights Act" as soon as I can.

Approved by NewTexas - now that's an achievement!

Pretty amazing what a TG campaign can do, isn't it! Still needs 40+ approvals by tomorrow though, so we have to keep working.

My friends, this is the last night before deadline. As of this moment, we have 95 approvals, 32 short of queue status. I will now spend as much time as I can to telegram the message below to as many delegates who have voted in favor of the "Patient Rights Act" as I can. I spent this morning telegramming all of the delegates who approved of the proposal last week.

Can anyone please post here or telegram me and tell me if and who you have telegrammed in support of the proposal?

Thank you all for your support, edits and suggestions. Whatever happens tonight, this will not be the end of "Rights of the Disabled." If it fails to reach queue by deadline, you will see it again. If it does reach queue, then I maintain confidence that it can and will pass with enough support needed to become law.

Peace be with each and every one of you.

Tonight, I would like to ask you to approve of my proposal, “Rights of the Disabled.” If it seems familiar to you, that may be because it reached queue status only a week ago, only to be removed by myself, its author, so that needed changes could be made. Now, it’s up for approval again, and it needs your support to guarantee basic rights for people with disabilities.

The proposal can currently be found on page 2 when you enter the following link into your url bar:

http://www.nationstates.net/10468/page=UN_proposal/start=5

If you could please take even a moment of your time and approve of this proposal, I would be most grateful. I’m also very sorry if you’ve already received a telegram in support of the proposal, as I’ve sent many messages in the past few days and may have accidentally sent you something already.

Thank you very much for your consideration,

-Tarmsden (a wheelchair-user)

OOC: How do you approve the proposals? I'm confused. :P

Go to the proposal on the UN's list of proposals. At the bottom, below where it lists the delegates who have approved of a proposal, click "approve."

OOC: hmm.. I don't see "approve" at the end of the list.

Look below the deadline. Any elected UN delegate from any region in the game can approve of a proposal. Are you a delegate?

OOC: I'm not a delegate of a region, that must be why. :( Ahh well.

Could you please telegram your delegate and ask him to approve of it? Your help is still appreciated!

Love and esterel, I totally forgot to thank you for your offer earlier. I was just too caught up with the TG campaign and stuff (latest update: 104 approvals). I think I'm going to pass. I just don't have time to look at another tool, even if it could be helpful.

Thanks anyways, though, and I'd really like to see your name on the approval list (wink, wink)!

Best of luck getting this to quorum, Tarmsden. I'd assist, but I'm preoccupied with Belarum's proposal.

Okay. Best of luck to you likewise, if you believe in that sort of thing. If "Rights of the Disabled" gets through, let me know what I can do for you and Belarum.

OOC: Hooray! It's in the queue!

Tarmsden, could you start a new "AT VOTE" thread, please? I think that's a help in keeping the discussion on track and not tied up in OBE stuff.

Congratulations on reaching quorum. :)

Congrats!

Congratulations!

Mine was the first vote against. But still. Nice job and all that.

Thank you to all of you for getting this far! Actually, I've requested official tags for this thread, as I feel some of the early debate was quite informative and will be helpful. Now, let's get it passed!

Our delegation takes pride in having cast Ausserland's vote in favor of this excellent resolution. We respectfully urge our colleagues to do likewise.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Well done getting this to quorum Tarmsden. I've voted for of course :).

The "revised" version of this proposal is NOT the version currently up for vote (Article VI still has the "enforce" language in it, which I oppose) -- as such, I have voted against it. I'm still trying to figure out how this is an international issue. I may abstain out of respect for the effort of the drafter, but only if we can vote on this revised version and not what's currently up for vote.

This is the second thread on this proposal. There was an earlier version that actually reached queue, but a number of extremely valid arguments were raised in forum debate that required me to withdraw the proposal and make necessary edits. Now, I am submitting a new draft here for criticism and comments for a little while. I'd love to resubmit it to the UN soon, and I'd greatly appreciate your questions and debate here. Thank you.

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.

Your comments and criticisms already 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
You're not from Tarmsden? What is this "federal government" you keep mentioning, and who cares what "America" does -- I've never even heard of that place!

OOC: RL v. NS

You're right. OOC because it was the most effective way of making an argument. I believe that it is occassionally necessary to use OOC comments as a means of calming fears about practicality.

"The "revised" version of this proposal is NOT the version currently up for vote (Article VI still has the "enforce" language in it, which I oppose) -- as such, I have voted against it. I'm still trying to figure out how this is an international issue. I may abstain out of respect for the effort of the drafter, but only if we can vote on this revised version and not what's currently up for vote."

False. This version has much more conciliatory lamguage regarding discrimination and it allows nations more leeway with regards to meeting the resolution's provisions by making UNCAD more of an advisory body. It still has the power to enforce the provisions of this resolution, yes, because it would be senseless to make a resolution with no means whatsoever of enforcing it. However, the new language reads:

"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."

It has the power to enforce this proposal as it sees fit, meaning that it has discretionary powers and can respect the specific needs of nations.

Why is the vote on this so close right now? Is it the UNCAD vs. national sovereignty deal?

Why is the vote on this so close right now? Is it the UNCAD vs. national sovereignty deal?

Don't panic. ;) It's much too early in the voting to have any idea of how it's going to go. 123 of the negative votes were cast by FOR SCIENCE from the Awful Circle. Enough said. And 324 were cast by Former English Colony, representing the North Pacific. I think I remember an earlier resolution where that region's vote swung back and forth like a pendulum.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I'll be honest. I'm a little wishy washy about the whole thing myself. I'm not entirely sure why. I do greatly prefer this revised version over the original, though. One way or the other, good job and good luck.

I'm sorry if my previous post sounded a little freaked-out. I telegrammed Former English Colony and FOR SCIENCE. Former English Colony said that they are waiting for a regional vote, but that it is currently in favor 3-1. FOR SCIENCE hasn't responded yet. Where are our official tags? Have to lodge another request with the administrators, I guess.

Where are our official tags? Have to lodge another request with the administrators, I guess.
I don't know but I just asked in the mod forum for last resolution's official topic to be unstuck as people are commenting about your resolution there.

You mean on "Patient Rights Act"? That's confusing and weird. I've made 2 requests for tags now, so I don't want to pester the moderators any more. I suppose you're welcome to, though.

I sincerely hope that this does not pass. I totally respect the intentions of the draft resolution's author, but the UN is not the appropriate venue for this sort of action. It is not the operating principles of the United Nations to interfere in and mandate the day-to-day internal operations of member nations. The UN does not seek to enforce socialist values upon its members, regardless of how worthy the intentions.

Furthermore, I take exception to the statement that if the state provides a $100,000 van for a citizen, that said citizen will turn around and contribute $300,000 in tax revenue, creating a net gain of $200,000. Where do these stats come from? Do all disabled persons create the set figure of $300,000 in their working lifetime? Are you saying that if enacted, this resolution should only apply to those young enough to spend their entire working life paying taxes?

As you said yourself, the disabled are already protected by anti-discrimination laws. This draft resolution is redundant, seeking to expand UN operations into the daily internal lives of its members.

Rp

Again, I applaud your efforts, I simply object to the forum in which you have chosen to express yourself

You mean on "Patient Rights Act"? That's confusing and weird. I've made 2 requests for tags now, so I don't want to pester the moderators any more. I suppose you're welcome to, though.

Hack's probably already started his vacation by now, I think, so you'll most likely have to wait for Fris to pop around to handle it.

The UN has repeatedly taken a stand guaranteeing that all people have the right to be productive and independent members of society. For disabled people, this requires a few very specific actions that have never been specified by UN resolutions. Therefore, it is necessary that they be passed here.

As far as the stats on costs go, they are from the real world. I know it is OOC, but my state's Bureau of Rehabilitation Services is the only state agency that actually creates revenue by providing long-term tools to make the disabled productive. Sorry that I have no NS example, but I felt a RW example would suffice here.

The UN has repeatedly taken a stand guaranteeing that all people have the right to be productive and independent members of society. For disabled people, this requires a few very specific actions that have never been specified by UN resolutions. Therefore, it is necessary that they be passed here.
It is not necessary. The general provisions for equality are already in place, it is not the UN's mandate to micromanage. Next will the state need to provide soy milk for lactose intolerant people? Or maybe the state needs to provide free transportation for people who cannot afford to live near their jobs? This resolution is redundant and invasive. The UN is dedicated to acknowledging and respecting the soveriegnty of member states. Not putting a ramp into the 7-11, and not outfitting your van for you, are not human rights violations.

As far as the stats on costs go, they are from the real world. I know it is OOC, but my state's Bureau of Rehabilitation Services is the only state agency that actually creates revenue by providing long-term tools to make the disabled productive. Sorry that I have no NS example, but I felt a RW example would suffice here.

But what you have done is to present the stats in such a manner as to imply that this is a given, guaranteed outcome. Not every disabled person will create this amount of tax revenue, for any number of reasons. Is it OK to discriminate against 50 year olds who will not work long enough to meet up to this stat? Or what about against some schmuck who is going to work minimum wage forever? Your argument just does not hold water. A disabled person with the means to generate $300,000 of tax revenue should have the werewithal to get himself to work without the state looking after his van. That's all I'm saying.

...the disabled are already protected by anti-discrimination laws....
In all nations? No. Hence the need for this resolution.

In all nations? No. Hence the need for this resolution.
Then what is needed is a more general anti-discrimination resolution, not one which seeks to impose specific guidelines for implementation.

We much appreciate the polite and thoughtful manner in which the honorable representative of Realpolitika has expressed his objections to this resolution. We disagree strongly, but it's nice to see civility reigning -- for once -- in this Assembly. We would like to respond to two comments....

I sincerely hope that this does not pass. I totally respect the intentions of the draft resolution's author, but the UN is not the appropriate venue for this sort of action. It is not the operating principles of the United Nations to interfere in and mandate the day-to-day internal operations of member nations. The UN does not seek to enforce socialist values upon its members, regardless of how worthy the intentions.

We believe that the NSUN is a completely appropriate venue. This, we believe, is an issue of human rights which transcends national boundaries. It is not a matter of granting new rights to disabled persons, but rather of enabling them to exercise the rights which should be enjoyed by all.

As long-time members of this Assembly can attest, Ausserland has often and strongly protested the tendency of this body to meddle in affairs best left to nations to handle. We must disagree with our honorable colleague, though, that this is such a case. We believe the resolution's requirements are most sensible and properly respectful of the widely varying situations in which different nations find themselves.

We would also take issue with the characterization of this resolution as enforcing "socialist values" upon its members. Ausserland is a strongly capitalist nation, and we see nothing socialist at all about empowering our disabled citizens to participate to the fullest in the life of the nation. Many of them make important contributions to the health of our very capitalistic economy.

As you said yourself, the disabled are already protected by anti-discrimination laws. This draft resolution is redundant, seeking to expand UN operations into the daily internal lives of its members.


We must again take issue with the contention that the resolution is redundant. We believe it goes beyond the simple prevention of discrimination toward empowerment -- empowerment of an important and very valuable segment of the population to participate in and contribute to the lives of our nations.

By order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Of course I have been civil, are we not an organization of civilised societies? I find it disturbing that NSUN may not always be civil. I have not yet experienced that, for I am new to the Assembly.

...but rather of enabling them to exercise the rights which should be enjoyed by all.

I have no problem with this, but the resolution seems to leave it to the state to make special provisions for disabled persons. This, I believe, is where the issue steps outside the boundaries of the UN mandate. The state should not be required to - and here I use a previous example - customize a wheelchair accessible van to enable a citizen to get to work. This is, in effect, enforcing public health care and public transportation, neither of which are the business of the Assembly.

...Ausserland is a strongly capitalist nation, and we see nothing socialist at all about empowering our disabled citizens to participate to the fullest in the life of the nation.

I see socialism where the UN forces a state to make special provisions to enhance - beyond the bare necessities - the lives of disabled persons. No able-bodied person is entitled to special legislation allowing them to get to work. Tall people - like me - are not entitled to having all doorways made larger so we don't bump our heads. Claustrophobes are not automatically given corner offices full of windows.

I fully agree with the idea of equal opportunity. Disabled persons should have the same opportunity as others to make their way in the world. However, to insist that it is the responsibility of the state to enable them to overcome their particular obstacles goes beyond equality. There should be no deliberate barriers erected in the paths of the disabled, but neither should those paths be paved by the state. Each person faces challenges, some more than others; it is not up to the state to level the playing field, ony to make sure there are no additional obstacles added.

That said, I feel I have made my case against this proposal, and will not fill up more space here. I will respond to direct questions, but will no longer post responses to the comments of other of our members.

Thank you.

The subject matter of this proposal is inherently domestic, intra-national and neither international nor global in nature.

We strongly empathize with the need for, logic of, and support in the establishment of world-wide equal access in all matters for those who are disabled, and would like nothing more than to see such universal equality come to pass.

However, this proposal trades sovereignty for leadership. There is no need to do so if the UN adopts the practice of establishing Model Codes (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11025811&postcount=46).

Nay

Ausserland- thank God there is enough decency left for socialists and capitalists to work together to benefit everyone. That gives me sincere hope for the future of NS and the real world.

Realpolitika- your arguments center around the UN giving "special rights" to the disabled. Let me put it this way: would you consider the rights to move, to work, to live independently, to use public buildings and to receive necessary medical treatments special rights, or basic rights? The disabled are not receiving new rights here. There isn't even a requirement for the state to provide something like an accessible van, so long as these things are "available." This could be through private initiatives or non-profit efforts that might be more appealing to capitalist nations. No new rights are being granted here. OOC: At the celebration for the signing of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), there were T-shirts handed out that said: "Boldly going where everyone else has already been before 1991." We aren't asking for anything new. We're asking for the same things you already have, even though we need different ways to get there. That's all.

I have serious issues with a resolution that is to pass through the United Nations that is worded politically incorrect. Once the wording is changed, then I will vote for it.
The wording that needs to be changed is as follows:

"The Disabled person..."
The Disabled..."

These terms should be changed throughout the whole resolution to read 'person with a disability'. This is because stating 'the disabled person' is labelling that person with the disability and thereby focusing on the fact that they have a disability. People with a disability are valued members of society that should be respected in a way that recognises them as valuable and not just 'disabled'. This is something that needs to be changed throughout the world so that people are encouraged to stop focusing on a disability that a person may have, and start focusing on their abilities. I feel the United Nations is a great place to start this change, as it influences many people and many political bodies.


Also on the point that states,
"4) All public buildings shall make a reasonable effort to provide access to their facilities for people with disabilities;"
My question is who defines 'reasonable effort'. I think it should be mandatory that all buildings are required to prove that they have considered catering for the needs of persons with a disability in the design of their building, perhaps through accreditation requirements.


Please re-edit your resolution and i'm sure you will receive many more votes.

Regards,

The Free Land of Domsdom

Such an edit is merely window-dressing. If you were to ask a person who had some form of disability if they would prefer to have a label or the risk of having no rights at all I expect they would opt for the former.

I voted against, becasue I dissagree with part 6. All else I would have agreed with, too bad I can't propose an amendment!

UNCAD must provide the funds for these necessary changes into my nation. I am not shunning the disabled but I will not send funds to support this organization. If the disabled want more rights and better access to building and more attention in society, they must pay for it out of their pockets. And I for one to not appreciate the fact that UNCAD can come into my nation and try to tell me what to do. I negate this Resolution. The disabled should be treated as equals. We should not baby them. Yes I'll give you your damn ramps but that is it. Stop complaining.

Rihanna Ortega
Leader of New Found Vendetta

UNCAD must provide the funds for these necessary changes into my nation. I am not shunning the disabled but I will not send funds to support this organization. If the disabled want more rights and better access to building and more attention in society, they must pay for it out of their pockets. And I for one to not appreciate the fact that UNCAD can come into my nation and try to tell me what to do. I negate this Resolution. The disabled should be treated as equals. We should not baby them. Yes I'll give you your damn ramps but that is it. Stop complaining.

Rihanna Ortega
Leader of New Found Vendetta

UNCAD must provide the funds for these necessary changes into my nation. I am not shunning the disabled but I will not send funds to support this organization. If the disabled want more rights and better access to building and more attention in society, they must pay for it out of their pockets. And I for one to not appreciate the fact that UNCAD can come into my nation and try to tell me what to do. I negate this Resolution. The disabled should be treated as equals. We should not baby them. Yes I'll give you your damn ramps but that is it. Stop complaining.

Rihanna Ortega
Leader of New Found Vendetta

I voted against, because I dissagree with part 6. All else I would have agreed with, too bad I can't propose an amendment!

1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of negative discrimination in 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;

This Resolution is pretty solid. I have to put forth this question though.

When is negative discrimination strictly necessary due to the nature of the disability? Maybe I'm getting the wrong idea here. An explanation would be much appreciated.

The Armed Republic of Fenjchj would like to make the following statement on the issue of The Rights of the Disabled:

It doesn't take a genius to see the absurdity in this whole debate. The Rights of the Disabled is a idiotic idea that needs to be stopped! If you were in business what would you do with your damaged goods? The disabled are nothing but damaged products or creations that went wrong, by helping them in any or other way we would be going against nature and the evolution. One should not interfere with nature and nature's evolution. By helping the disabled make a better living we're going against nature and actuating a world of more disabled, more damaged goods. The longer the disabled live, the better life they live, the longer they'll be a problem for society and the more likely they are to reproduce. So this whole act is doomed to fail, by supporting it you're supporting a world full of disabled for tomorrow. It wouldn't be very economically smart. The Armed Republic of Fenjchj refuses to take part in such an action and anyone with an IQ above his shoe size should see why.

-The Armed Republic of Fenjchj

If you were to break your leg and be confined to a wheelchair for a while would you prefer to be removed from society as a 'damaged good' no matter how temporary the break is?

I vote against. I have no problem with disabled people doing education, but this is going too far...


QUOTE

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;




So if some mother of an 25 year old mental disabled person, with the mental capacities of a 8 year old wants to study...say... higher physics, the government has to pay for a educational path that is going nowhere.

So,

NAY

I vote against. I have no problem with disabled people doing education, but this is going too far...

QUOTE

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;

So if some mother of an 25 year old mental disabled person, with the mental capacities of a 8 year old wants to study...say... higher physics, the government has to pay for a educational path that is going nowhere.

So,

NAY

The representative did not understand the portion of the resolution which he quoted. The individual in his example would obviously require a special education program. The exception in the second half of the sentence would apply. No one would be required to try to teach him higher physics.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The Armed Republic of Fenjchj would like to make the following statement on the issue of The Rights of the Disabled:

It doesn't take a genius to see the absurdity in this whole debate. The Rights of the Disabled is a idiotic idea that needs to be stopped! If you were in business what would you do with your damaged goods? The disabled are nothing but damaged products or creations that went wrong, by helping them in any or other way we would be going against nature and the evolution. One should not interfere with nature and nature's evolution. By helping the disabled make a better living we're going against nature and actuating a world of more disabled, more damaged goods. The longer the disabled live, the better life they live, the longer they'll be a problem for society and the more likely they are to reproduce. So this whole act is doomed to fail, by supporting it you're supporting a world full of disabled for tomorrow. It wouldn't be very economically smart. The Armed Republic of Fenjchj refuses to take part in such an action and anyone with an IQ above his shoe size should see why.

-The Armed Republic of Fenjchj

"There, but for the grace of God, go I".

I once threw my knee out playing basketball. Luckily, I was still able to get around without any special accomodations, though stairs were a challenge, but what if it had been worse? It can happen to anyone.

Also, there are a number of disabled people where I work. Yes, they need convinient elevators, wide enough aisles for their chairs (should be wider than they are), and extra-large computer monitors for the visually impaired. But with those reasonable accomodations, they can be just as productive as anyone else in the office.

We fully support this proposal, aiding disabled persons would definitley yield great advantages for both the disabled and the nations they belong to. If the disabled are trained and taught skills that'll aid them to enter the labor workforce, this will give them self-esteem, confidence and a sense of community and belonging, and at the same time increase the country's economy they serve. Obviously, Fenjchj didn't think this through, and it confuses me as to how you think that preparing the disabled to be productive citizens will result in negative consequences. Helping them wouldn't "actuat[e] a world of more disabled", you wouldn't sever your limbs to get a more comfortable elevator, would you? As aforementioned, this proposal will ultimately benefit both parties, and the Caliph of the UnitedpoorArabs gives it his full support.

The Free Land of Kharmatheuz strongly supports the resolution on the Rights of the Disabled. In Kharmatheuz we have always belived a state should be like a loving parent, watching over it's children without ever interfering too much with their private lives. Just like parents the state should look out for it's children(citizen) and always be there for them(kids/citizen) when needed. A parent should be there for it's kid when growing up helping it flourish and grow for the first years, a parent should teach it's kids the right from wrong and help them grow up to be good and decent human beings who know the right from wrong. A parent should also be there for it's children when they get hurt or turn the wrong way. A parent's guidance and help is vitally important in those cases. So, when a person gets sick or disabled or greatly injured the state should help. Just like a parent would come and help it's kid when hurt.

Now how can this be idiotic? Disabled people have to have rights. And I do agree with Randomea.

Fenjchj- your hatred is almost as saddening as your ignorance. By the way, has your nation ever gone to war? Would your nation kill off all of its disabled veterans? If it existed outside of the UN, would it kill off Alexander the Great (epilepsy)? Timurlane (mobility impairment)? Napoleon (possible genetic disorder)? Abraham Lincoln (Marfan's syndrome)? FDR (polio)? Stephen Hawking (paralysis)? Me (mobility impairment)? I think I might be able to see who the real "damaged good" is in this debate.

New Found Vendetta- We get it. We get it. We get it. However, I think more nations would be ticked if we were to demand funding for UNCAD, as the UN has no taxation or similar revenue source.

Neverfather- We get it. We get it. Do people here have copy-and-past deficit disorder or something?

Whoever said the thing about calling people with disabilities "disabled"- I'm disabled. Or, I have a disability. Believe me, most disabled people seriously don't care if they're called disabled. Liberals seem to, but we don't. "Cripple" or "gimp", on the other hand, are quite offensive.

Finally, someone said that they don't really feel that the government needs to provide services to the disabled. This resolution doesn't mandate that. It simply mandates that certain things happen. Therefore, if a nation has charities, corporations, private partnerships etc. that are providing for the disabled, that's fine. There is no requirement here that the government does anything here other than make sure that the provisions of the resolution are met. Actually, that falls to UNCAD, which answers questions like what is "reasonable" for accessibility and what is "negative discrimination." Experts can better define these things on a case-by-case basis and can better give leeway where it is needed than any specific definitions in the resolution could.

Um.. Napoleon kind of was killed off and kind of deserved it... but yeah the rest of the great people you mentioned did deserve to keep living.

The Armed Republic of Fenjchj would like to make the following statement on the issue of The Rights of the Disabled:

It doesn't take a genius to see the absurdity in this whole debate. The Rights of the Disabled is a idiotic idea that needs to be stopped! If you were in business what would you do with your damaged goods? The disabled are nothing but damaged products or creations that went wrong, by helping them in any or other way we would be going against nature and the evolution. One should not interfere with nature and nature's evolution. By helping the disabled make a better living we're going against nature and actuating a world of more disabled, more damaged goods. The longer the disabled live, the better life they live, the longer they'll be a problem for society and the more likely they are to reproduce. So this whole act is doomed to fail, by supporting it you're supporting a world full of disabled for tomorrow. It wouldn't be very economically smart. The Armed Republic of Fenjchj refuses to take part in such an action and anyone with an IQ above his shoe size should see why.

-The Armed Republic of Fenjchj

I must say Fenjchj, you obviously do not understand the true nature of a person. What makes a person alive? Useful to society? Beneficial to those around them? Is it having an unbelievable high IQ? Or making a million dollars a year? No! There are hundreds of thousands of disabled people around the world that still have some impact in the lives of those around them- likewise, there are many perfectly healthy and normal people that could use a kick in the butt. Likening the disabled to "damaged goods" is reviving the old Nazi philosophy that brought about the death of millions of innocent people in WWII. Who are you that you have the right to determine whether or not someone lives a life beneficial to the state/economy? Are there other things in life than political interests? Love? Friendship? Justice? Treating disabled people like useless chattel and a cancer upon society will result in a country that has no scruples about how they treat anyone, disabled or not. What if a governmental official has an opponent who is causing him a lot of annoyance? Simple. All he would have to do is get that opponent labeled “disabled” in some way and boom- out he goes.

Also, you said: “The longer the disabled live, the better life they live, the longer they'll be a problem for society and the more likely they are to reproduce.” What’s wrong with anyone living a good life? Disabled or not? And just because someone is disabled does not mean that their children will be- there are perfectly healthy people who have Downs syndrome children, simply because they carry the recessive gene and don’t know it.

In short, your reasoning behind voting against this resolution shows your elitist, Nazi philosophy of purifiying the disabled and elderly and supposed “damaged goods” from the land. Shame! :mad:

OK, I guess you're right about Napoleon. Still, militaristic nations might appreciate the fact that he was disabled. Not to mention other nations might realize that the disabled can occassionally be quite scary and violent, just like anyone else. Not sure if that really helps my case, but it's still anti-stereotypical.

Feliath, I agree with you. However, don't forget that the disabled can certainly be as productive in terms of material contributions to society as anyone else. Let's not forget the world leaders mentioned above, as well as just simple workers, reporters, lawyers, accountants, teachers, doctors, students, etc. who are disabled. There are hard contributions made by the disabled that can satisfy even the most materialist of people. Believe me, it's not like we're just alive. We're living.

Oh yeah I know that- I just forgot to mention it- agree totally with you. :)

I totally understand. This just goes to show how much the disabled really do contribute on a number of levels. Hopefully other nations will see this and support the resolution.

I mean, we regularly employ the physically and mentally handicapped. Our street s have never been so clean, and the 1-800 tax-info phone banks operaters are even more unintelligable then ever.

The representative did not understand the portion of the resolution which he quoted. The individual in his example would obviously require a special education program. The exception in the second half of the sentence would apply. No one would be required to try to teach him higher physics.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Kind mister Ahlmann, if the exceptions are not listed in the resolution, then the resolution is not very well written.

"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;"

Kind Autarkiana, please carefully read all legislation before commenting on it.

Zcoria, my life ambitions (which have an education not unrealistic for them) involve teaching as a professor of anthropology and eventually entering politics. Please do not be so condescending as to assume that I want to spend my educated life cleaning streets or answering 1-800 calls.

I want equal rights, not special treatment, in response to another post that I don't remember at the moment. That's a little more than a "damned ramp", thank you.

1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of negative discrimination in 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;

In order to live in a democratic society, you must have freedom of speech. By not allowing discrimination of a disabled person, also implies that you can't discriminate them using words. So if someone calls someone a "retard" they can arrest them for discrimination towards the mentally challenged.

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

Sometimes it will be too costly to the economy to put up these facilities for the disabled, and therefore those countries with poor economies will suffer.

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;

I'm sorry, but I strongly believe that if you are handicapped you should pay for your own health care and assistive technology. Already, there is very little healthcare in our nation(only about $147 per year for each person).

1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of negative discrimination in 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;

In order to live in a democratic society, you must have freedom of speech. By not allowing discrimination of a disabled person, also implies that you can't discriminate them using words. So if someone calls someone a "retard" they can arrest them for discrimination towards the mentally challenged.

Discrimination is different treatment in the same circumstances for people with differences among them. Calling someone a retard, or a cripple, or "Wheels" is nary a stones throw away from throwing around words like ******, raghead, dike, kike, and cracker. Taboo, sure, but I don't think anyone's been arrested (in a fair society) for whipping out the big nasty words that people are so afraid of. Now, if someone said, "We don't serve you legless kind here," then that is discrimination.

Brings me to my second point, I don't recall my question being addressed. In the same article, why does it suggest that negative discrimination is strictly necessary in some cases? So far as I can tell, negative discrimination is not something that is strictly necessary, and that line leaves plenty of loophole room. Any explanation?

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

Sometimes it will be too costly to the economy to put up these facilities for the disabled, and therefore those countries with poor economies will suffer.

And that's really too bad. But by giving disabled peoples the access to public buildings, they are more free to be productive workers, more free to spend their own money, and all that other capitalist hooray stuff. Your oh-so-fragile economy will be 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;

I'm sorry, but I strongly believe that if you are handicapped you should pay for your own health care and assistive technology. Already, there is very little healthcare in our nation(only about $147 per year for each person).

Looks like you need better healthcare.

And also, if you read closely, that clause of the Resolution doesn't demand that your country pay for it. All it says is that your disabled MUST have access to the technology. They can't buy it themselves OR with government subsidy if it isn't available to them, can they?

Honestly, you people and money...

You do need freedom of speech, and Tarmsden has repeatedly voted in favor of granting hate speech protection. However, hate speech that incites riots is already illegal in the vast majority of nations. If this is the core of your argument, then current anti-discrimination laws passed by the UN have banned all hate speech towards gays, minorities, etc. Why should the disabled not have the same protection? If anti-discrimination laws do not automatically ban hate speech, your argument is already moot.

As far as the cost argument, I've said it already on a number of occassions. Ramping is inexpensive and is often all that is needed to make a building accessible. In other cases, remember that the UNCAD has the ability and the responsibility to enforce the provisions of this resolution. Therefore, it has implied discretion to grant leeway to nations that may be unable to afford major renovations.

There is nothing in this resolution saying that the state has to pay for healthcare and assistive technology. It simply needs to be available. Maybe the state can cooridinate a private partnership to provide these things. Maybe it can find a non-profit organization to fulfill this need. Maybe it can give the disabled contact to foreign nations or bodies that can help. Think outside of the box when on a short budget. If the disabled are wealthy enough, then I agree that they could be expected to pay for their own healthcare and assistive technology in nations without socialized medicine. This resolution doesn't prevent that from happening.

Norderia- jinx for typing almost the same things at almost the same time! Major props to you.

Sorry for forgetting to respond to the negative discrimination question. Originally, there was a clause stating that:

"1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of discrimination in all buildings and institutions;"

However, in debate, many nations expressed concern that this could have everything from P.E. classes to the military declared illegal. I attempted to argue that discrimination needs to be on the basis of capacity to, as Ausserland put it, "positively contribute to the success of the mission," not on the basis of having a disability. In the end, however, I decided it was more tactful to just change the wording. In the hands of UNCAD, I'm quite certain that it will not be an achille's heel so much as an effective compromise.

So long as there are safeguards in place to prevent that phrase from being used for negative ends.

I think, though, and this is a moot point by now, that there's a difference between negative discrimination and disqualification by means of handicap. It isn't discrimination that deems a man with muscular dystrophy incapable of being a firefighter, it's the necessary qualifications for the job and the fact that a wheelchair borne man cannot meet those qualifications. That isn't negative discrimination, it's common sense. The wording is inaccurate, but I know there was a rush to get this Resolution completed and submitted.

UNCAD would provide safeguards against the spinning of the clause.

The Resolution has my support.

Realpolitika- your arguments center around the UN giving "special rights" to the disabled. Let me put it this way: would you consider the rights to move, to work, to live independently, to use public buildings and to receive necessary medical treatments special rights, or basic rights?

I have several problems with this initiative:
The right to move, if one is immobilized, is a special right. The right to work, if one is of limited employability, is a special right.

The right to live independently is troublesome, because if the disabled could live completely imdependently, then this resolution would not even be under consideration.

The right to access public buildings exists already; you are asking for special considerations to permit you to exercise that right... you could always as a friend to help you get your chair up the stairs, rather than ask for an expensive ramp.

The right to necessary medical treatment is indeed a special right, considering that it implies the provision of state-funded healthcare, which is not something this Assembly has the authority to impose upon its members.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not opposed to making special provisions in certain circumstances for persons with disabilities. What I oppose is the premise that it is the responsibility of this intergovernmental organisation to enforce upon member states any manner of rules for their internal operations.

There isn't even a requirement for the state to provide something like an accessible van, so long as these things are "available." This could be through private initiatives or non-profit efforts that might be more appealing to capitalist nations. No new rights are being granted here.

This is an absurdity. You're saying the state doesn't need to provide it, as long as there is someone else available to provide it. But if there is no one else available or willing to provide it, then it defaults to a state responsibility, and the state is forced to make these special provosions. So it does ultimately rest upon the state.

And as for making it "available" it seems to be beyond the scope of UN authority to force member states to open their markets to any specific type of entrepreneur.

OOC: At the celebration for the signing of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), there were T-shirts handed out that said: "Boldly going where everyone else has already been before 1991." We aren't asking for anything new. We're asking for the same things you already have, even though we need different ways to get there. That's all.

Also OOC: I am not unsympathetic to the issue, I simply am opposed to the idea that it is within the UN's authority or mandate to tackle this issue.

Rp

UNCAD must provide the funds for these necessary changes into my nation. I am not shunning the disabled but I will not send funds to support this organization. If the disabled want more rights and better access to building and more attention in society, they must pay for it out of their pockets. And I for one to not appreciate the fact that UNCAD can come into my nation and try to tell me what to do. I negate this Resolution. The disabled should be treated as equals. We should not baby them. Yes I'll give you your damn ramps but that is it. Stop complaining.

Rihanna Ortega
Leader of New Found Vendetta

Could you please try in the future to not be quite so childish? This is supposed to be a civilised discussion.

Rp

OOC: Is there a way to call a right of reply, or any other point of order, in this forum? I am pretty new here.

1) All disabled persons shall be free from all forms of negative discrimination in 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;
In the interpretation of New Arpad this means that disabled persons will be treated by institutions just like any other citizens unless the nature of their disability would disrupt the functionality of an institution. This sounds fair.

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;
New Arpad does already treat any disabled persons based upon his/her intellectual skills. This means that our educational program will provide disabled students with the necessary funds to make sure that they can get a decent education that is in accordance with their intellectual capacities. New Arpad would like to point out though that the public funding is only there to give them the same chances and not to give them preferential treatment. A disabled person who wants to go to the university for instance will still have to be able to live up to scientific learning standards for instance. Special educational programs that teach necessary life skills are not seen as a preferential treatment of course.

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;
New Arpad does not believe in public social welfare which is why we strongly recommend every citizen to sign an adequate insurance for himself/herself and his/her family. These insurances should also take care of this paticular issue, but if they don't then we make the parents of said disabled persons directly responsible for all costs. New Arpad will only step in when there is nobody else to pay the bills so to say. Such incidents are a rare exception though because more than 99.9% percent of our citizens are adequately insured. Our excellent economy and the non existant income tax rate help there of course.

4) All public buildings shall make a reasonable effort to provide access to their facilities for people with disabilities;
New Arpad has always been of the opinion that disabled persons deserve to be treated with respect. This is also why almost all of our public buildings are already equiped with ramps for people who are in a wheelchair for instance, but this is just one of many examples.

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;
Our entirely private insurance system is already taking care of this. One should not believe how effective private companies can be when it comes to making the most out of the money they have to spend. They do this to maximise their own profit of course, but our laws the competition on the insurance market keep them well under control.

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.
New Arpad has to express its worries that a UN Commision might ignore the economical aspects of these issues, but is still inclined to vote for the "Rights of the Disabled"

We fully support this proposal, aiding disabled persons would definitley yield great advantages for both the disabled and the nations they belong to. If the disabled are trained and taught skills that'll aid them to enter the labor workforce, this will give them self-esteem, confidence and a sense of community and belonging, and at the same time increase the country's economy they serve.

There is no guarantee of a net benefit to the nation. That depends, case by case, upon the cost of providing for the disabled person as opposed to the benefit created by that person as a result of the provisions made. It is just as likely to be a net loss as a net gain, from an economic perspective.

Self-esteem, confidence, and the like are NOT the aim of the UN. This body is not designed to make everybody feel nice. It is designed to provide for basic human rights and to provide for international peace and security. This resolution is not about basic human rights, it is about standards of living. And if it's standards of living you want to address, look to the UNDP, do not create UNCAD (Which, by the way, is a horrible abbreviation...I keep thinking it's a typo for UNCTAD)

Thank you.

Rp

There is nothing in this resolution saying that the state has to pay for healthcare and assistive technology. It simply needs to be available. Maybe the state can cooridinate a private partnership to provide these things. Maybe it can find a non-profit organization to fulfill this need. Maybe it can give the disabled contact to foreign nations or bodies that can help.

It is still mandating that the state is the fallback, with the responsibility to make expenditures to provide for the disabled. Even as a facilitator, the state should not be required to make special provisions for a class of citizens. And the provisions are special, the nature of this debate demonstrates that. They are directly relevant only to a small segment of society, and pointless to the vast majority.

Rp

It is still mandating that the state is the fallback, with the responsibility to make expenditures to provide for the disabled. Even as a facilitator, the state should not be required to make special provisions for a class of citizens. And the provisions are special, the nature of this debate demonstrates that. They are directly relevant only to a small segment of society, and pointless to the vast majority.

Rp
New Arpad's solution is to encourage families to get an adequate insurance that does also cover their children. If these children should turn out to be disabled then the coresponding insurance company is forced to continue to pay for their expenses. Parents who do not have an insurance will be held responsible for all costs until there is nothing more to get from them. New Arpad as a state will only step in when this point has been reached, but such cases are almost non existant. Most people here are smart enough to not test the state's generosity there.

New Arpad agrees that this kind of treatment is harsh, but we believe that it is not the state's job to pay for a welfare service. Private companies are much more efficient there. Besides, we have no income tax and an excellent economy so New Arpad's citisens have more than enough money to take care of such issues for themselves. The state is only a kind of supervisor in this system.

Kind mister Ahlmann, if the exceptions are not listed in the resolution, then the resolution is not very well written.

Since you don't seem able to understand the sentence you quoted, let me break it down for you:

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;

All disabled people have the right to an education as other folks. OK so far? Now read the second half of the sentence. If they need special education, they don't have to be given the other stuff. Got that?

Your example:

So if some mother of an 25 year old mental disabled person, with the mental capacities of a 8 year old wants to study...say... higher physics, the government has to pay for a educational path that is going nowhere.

The person obviously needs the special education. Nobody has to try to teach him higher physics. The exception is clearly stated.

And it's "Ms. Ahlmnann," "Dr. Ahlmann," "Lori," or even "Hey, you" -- but not "Mister Ahlmann."

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Self-esteem, confidence, and the like are NOT the aim of the UN. This body is not designed to make everybody feel nice. It is designed to provide for basic human rights and to provide for international peace and security. This resolution is not about basic human rights, it is about standards of living. And if it's standards of living you want to address, look to the UNDP, do not create UNCAD (Which, by the way, is a horrible abbreviation...I keep thinking it's a typo for UNCTAD)

Thank you.

Rp

We agree with the representative of Realpolitika that making everyone feel good should not be the business of this Assembly. We disagree with his implication that this resolution is attempting to do that. We again state our firm belief that this resolution is about basic human rights -- not granting or guaranteeing those rights, but enabling a significant and important segment of society to fully exercise those rights.

And we also believe that the resolution is not simply about standards of living. The ability to obtain an education has importance far beyond that. The ability to participate fully in the social, cultural and political life of a nation is something very different than "standards of living."

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

There is no guarantee of a net benefit to the nation. That depends, case by case, upon the cost of providing for the disabled person as opposed to the benefit created by that person as a result of the provisions made. It is just as likely to be a net loss as a net gain, from an economic perspective.

Self-esteem, confidence, and the like are NOT the aim of the UN. This body is not designed to make everybody feel nice. It is designed to provide for basic human rights and to provide for international peace and security. This resolution is not about basic human rights, it is about standards of living. And if it's standards of living you want to address, look to the UNDP, do not create UNCAD (Which, by the way, is a horrible abbreviation...I keep thinking it's a typo for UNCTAD)

Thank you.

Rp

If the disabled person joins the workforce and holds any kind of job for any time period between 20 to 40 years(standard period for labor) then we greatly doubt the possibility of a net loss. Not only will all goverment expenditure be returned in some form, but there will definitley be benefits. As to your other point, yes the UN is an organization to protect and propagate basic human rights, and promote peace and security within nations. Giving the disabled the opportunity to prosper like their more fortunate peers is definitley on the agenda, though, and the benefits they would reap from the proposal are not merely things that make them feel "nice"; integrating them in society is a right, don't you agree? Anyway, I scant came across anybody who frowned upon peace, human rights, and security. The majority of the human race would agree, in my opinion, that these would definitley be "nice things" to occur and strive for.

OOC: What does UNDP stand for? I swear acronyms would be the death of this language! In a hundred years we would probably talk like this: "Gm, d. Wu?" :rolleyes:

I also have a problem with UNCAD. It is illogical to think a commitee could be made to study the integration of the disabled into society. This committe would have an impossible task before it, and really is in no way relevent to the rest of the proposal. It seems to me that this committee would be ineffective, and it is the reason i have voted against this proposal.

Take out the commitee and you will have my vote

If the disabled person joins the workforce and holds any kind of job for any time period between 20 to 40 years(standard period for labor) then we greatly doubt the possibility of a net loss. Not only will all goverment expenditure be returned in some form, but there will definitley be benefits. As to your other point, yes the UN is an organization to protect and propagate basic human rights, and promote peace and security within nations. Giving the disabled the opportunity to prosper like their more fortunate peers is definitley on the agenda, though, and the benefits they would reap from the proposal are not merely things that make them feel "nice"; integrating them in society is a right, don't you agree? Anyway, I scant came across anybody who frowned upon peace, human rights, and security. The majority of the human race would agree, in my opinion, that these would definitley be "nice things" to occur and strive for.

OOC: What does UNDP stand for? I swear acronyms would be the death of this language! In a hundred years we would probably talk like this: "Gm, d. Wu?" :rolleyes:

While Realpolitika brings up a good point as to "Why the UN was formed", Socially progressive proposals such as this must be strived for. The reason so many of our fellow nations are so backward is because they have lacked the social ideas that we have! A socially-defunct nation will drown in its own upbringing without social policies.

"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;"

Kind Autarkiana, please carefully read all legislation before commenting on it.


Once again, I read and see the same: the same as their non-disabled peers. What are peers? What is comparable. The rules are incorrect, and will result in an unprecedented influx of incapable students. This has nothing to do with not wanting to give disabled people chances, but everything to do with not wanting to spend taxpayers money on training people in a job which they will never be great at performing in...

Also, the exception is vague.

On top of this, we feel that this rule is very well executable for the rich nations, but will jeapardize the nations with a lower than average GDP or a higher than average amount of disabled (e.g. due to wars etc).

This legislation has only one major benefit, the Autarkian membership of the UN, with it's pro's and cons is now vividly discussed by all in Autarkia, not just the intellectual elite.

While Realpolitika brings up a good point as to "Why the UN was formed", Socially progressive proposals such as this must be strived for. The reason so many of our fellow nations are so backward is because they have lacked the social ideas that we have! A socially-defunct nation will drown in its own upbringing without social policies.

Nations should indeed strive to do whatever they can to better the lives of their citizens, but little is accomplished in the long run if they are simply forced to do something because they are deemed to be too "backward" to have reached the level of enlightenment that supposedly more advanced nations have come to. In the long run, such nations simply ignore or leave the UN.

As such...

As a newly minted UN member, The Kingdom of Sprouch is very disappointed that this type of resolution has actually made it to a vote.

It can be spun in many ways, but at the end of the day, this resolution boils down to mandating a social welfare regime upon (what are supposed to be) independent sovereign states.

The Kingdom of Sprouch will not vote against this resolution, but will instead withdraw from the United Nations. We cannot allow this type of intrusion into our own internal affairs and it troubles us that the UN believes it should have this kind of authority.

The Kingdom of Sprouch will continue to monitor the activities of the UN with the hope that in future, it will be able to rejoin a UN body that does not meddle so deeply into the detailed social & spending policies of its member nations.

Although we appreciate the spirit of the resolution (and in fact, on our own accord, have already implemented several programs that accomplish much of what's been proposed), we refuse to allow an external UN body to dictate our social spending obligations to the degree put forward.

Sincerely,

The Royal Council of King Sprouch the 429th
The Kingdom of Sprouch
"A rabbit in every pot"
(and yes...it may even be a disabled rabbit!)

This is a good resolution. Aye.

All in all, it sounds nice, but I don't like how it gives vague definitions on "dignity" and the like. Are we to therefore pamper disabled people?

Because that's where I can easily see this going.

OOC: What does UNDP stand for? I swear acronyms would be the death of this language! In a hundred years we would probably talk like this: "Gm, d. Wu?" :rolleyes:


UNDP is the United Nations Development Programme...it's tye primary body responsible for tracking development in LDCs (Less Developed Countries) in regard to things like health and education and gender equality. It publishes an annual Human Development Report, ranking nation on an idex comprised of numerous factors. Canada and Norway have switched back and forth at the top for several years.

Rp

While Realpolitika brings up a good point as to "Why the UN was formed", Socially progressive proposals such as this must be strived for. The reason so many of our fellow nations are so backward is because they have lacked the social ideas that we have! A socially-defunct nation will drown in its own upbringing without social policies.
Are you saying that the new purpose of the UN should be to spread socialism around the world? The UN should, ultimately, be apolitical. Now, we all know that'll never happen, it is liberal by its very nature...but if it is to keep within its own guidelines, it must be careful about mandating social equality. Human rights, yes. But getting into the promotion of extensive positive rights is not a good idea.

Rp

Not at all. Just that the UN should strive to be more active in the rights of our fellow human beings. Without these rights, we see nations such as The Armed Republic of Fenjchj, who hold backwards thoughts such as this.


It doesn't take a genius to see the absurdity in this whole debate. The Rights of the Disabled is a idiotic idea that needs to be stopped! If you were in business what would you do with your damaged goods? The disabled are nothing but damaged products or creations that went wrong, by helping them in any or other way we would be going against nature and the evolution. One should not interfere with nature and nature's evolution. By helping the disabled make a better living we're going against nature and actuating a world of more disabled, more damaged goods. The longer the disabled live, the better life they live, the longer they'll be a problem for society and the more likely they are to reproduce. So this whole act is doomed to fail, by supporting it you're supporting a world full of disabled for tomorrow. It wouldn't be very economically smart. The Armed Republic of Fenjchj refuses to take part in such an action and anyone with an IQ above his shoe size should see why.

-The Armed Republic of Fenjchj

A human being is a human being. It is the duty of us, who are able, to help our brothers in need.

Social progress and socialism are clearly two very different things. The UN must make sure that everyone can enjoy basic rights. This is not a new concept. Just look at the defenses of minorities, women, sexual freedoms, anti-discrimination efforts, worker's rights, etc. that the UN already has in place. These are seen as quite basic and generally non-controversial measures. Why is there so much controversy over the rights of the disabled?

I suspect that it is because there is a need for certain unique provisions in order to make sure that the disabled have equal rights, and that these are often (wrongly) seen as expensive or as special privileges. Let me ask you, if I were to remove your ability to go to the store by putting a cinder block in the doorway, even though the sign on the door still said "open" and others could still get in, would you consider it a violation of your rights? If I were to say that you live in a democratic nation but that you must tell your vote to someone else in order to have it counted, would you consider it a violation of your rights? Discrimination is wrong. The UN has repeatedly affirmed this. The disabled REQUIRE unique steps to be taken to fight discrimination against them. I do not believe that asking for basically accessible buildings and at least some form of access to relevant medicine and science is too much to ask!

There is no requirement shoveled onto national governments to pay for this. Yes, I will concede that national governments will be a fallback if no one else provides basic services. However, why do you continually see the government as a provider, rather than a coordinator? Who says that the national government cannot grant a mandate to a corporation, a non-profit organization, an advisory body or whatever to carry this resolution out? No, this proposal is not compatible with a 100% hands-off governing style. You're right. I am actually asking every government to do something at least minimally to take care of its people. Is that too much to ask?

Yes, this may cost you money. I'll grant you that also. Do you really worship the all-holy dollar and bow down to the golden calf so much that you are willing to make a sub-caste of second-class citizens in the name of profit? If the worst crime that I commit here is placing people ahead of money, then my conscience is clean.

Please look at the actual wording of this resolution. Please see how little it is asking. Please see how much it can accomplish. Please look back at the old debates that have occurred on this thread, as they are quite important and relevant to the discussion we are having now.

I really do respect your opposition to this measure, and I respect you as a nation. I don't mean anything personal against you, Realpolitika, as you have argued well and earned my respect. I just disagree with you.

The gloves are off.

Actually, the gloves are really off for you, Fenjchj. Where did you go to, anyways?

Solaris-X supports this, voted, yes.

The Kingdom of Sprouch will not vote against this resolution, but will instead withdraw from the United Nations. We cannot allow this type of intrusion into our own internal affairs and it troubles us that the UN believes it should have this kind of authority.


Uh oh! Guess what!!!

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/office.jpg




HA HA! Finally, NORDERIA WINS!

Edit: Actually, that's probably only because Cluich, Gruen, Fonzo, and Palentine aren't paying attention to this thread... Their loss.

NOO! This destroys everything our nation stands for. Years of progress toward an improved human race via natural selection, and here the UN wants to send us back to the Charity Age!

Norderia you forgot the image quotes, and I extremely doubt Sprouch left an office, more likely a dark corner.

I do not understand why those who find the proposal to your detriment construe it in the least profitable way. As proper civil servants you should not say 'this proposal says we need to do <--this much-->, but it's possible it could say we need to do <----this----much---->, so that possibility is going to completely mess us up.' Instead you should be thinking 'Hmm, the intention of the author was probably to get us to do <--this much--> but heck, if you look closely we can get away with doing only <this much>.'
You're diplomats, keep your cards to your chest, bluff and appear to give away more of your sovereignity and rights than you do.
What do diplomats learn at politic-a-school these days? :rolleyes:

You're diplomats, keep your cards to your chest, bluff and appear to give away more of your sovereignity and rights than you do.
What do diplomats learn at politic-a-school these days? :rolleyes:

That would be all fine and dandy if it weren't for provision #6:

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 ultimately gives the UN complete authority over the interpretation of this resolution and gives them the final say on what a nation would be oblgated to provide, does it not?

i think the UN should consider making this completely optional, on a reward basis if a nation accepts.

Also, this law cant possibly be universally applicable to all forms of government, the ability to amend this law for different forms would be nice.

How many committes would their be? One to check on the government? One to check if someone is truly injured? Finances? Good God the finances? Imagine the massive amounts of paperwork and money needed. How would a smaller nation like mine possibly afford such costs. And What would define incapacitated? I broke my leg in 12 pieces, that could be incapacitating, but what if i have a job that uses my arms only? What about people who intentionally injure themselves? Would their be a cutoff point to care? Would their be a new tax to handle financial burden? does this apply to all jobs with the same amount of care offered?

Answers would be nice?

And What would define incapacitated?

We also had concerns about this.

It brought to mind the Simpsons episode where Homer was entitled to work from home because of obesity :)

I reckon if someone is too obese to get out of bed, it's a "physical impairment" and the nation should do all that it can to ensure that the citizen has access to a forklift so they can get from place-to-place in order to "carry out normal day-to-day activities" :D

I'm being facetious of course, but once a nation hands over the ultimate authority to a UN body that includes "disability activists", anything's possible :p

Regarding the proposed UN resolution titled "Rights of the Disabled"

The Theocracy of St Dolomite, after much thought and consideration, hereby recommends to its neighbor nation, the South Pacific's UN Delegate, The Rootin Tootin Shindig of Caer Rialis, that the resolution be rejected.

The resolution should be rejected because of flaws in the following mandate points

4) "... public buildings shall make a reasonable effort ..." The term "public buildings" needs to be clarified. Is this to be buildings *owned* by the public, ie governmental buildings, or buildings *used* by the public, ie privately owned shops and businesses.

4) "... public buildings shall make a reasonable effort ..." The term "reasonable effort" is broadly vague, and possible violations are inherently unenforcable and will result in wasted time and effort throughout the world's legal systems as it is disputed.

6) "UNCAD shall ... enforce the provisions of this proposal." The term "enforce" is unclear. Shall this UNCAD have the ability to impose fines, sanctions or other real penalties on member nations found not to be in compliance, or merely be a paper tiger of nasty warning notes?

i think the UN should consider making this completely optional, on a reward basis if a nation accepts.

Also, this law cant possibly be universally applicable to all forms of government, the ability to amend this law for different forms would be nice.

On the second count, illegal (you can't amend U.N. law officially, you can have a certain breadth of interpretation, but you have to stick to the letter (if not the spirit) of the law once it's been passed.

Equally, why wouldn't it be universally applicable? I can't see why any type of government is being discriminated against by passing this resolution.

How many committes would their be? One to check on the government? One to check if someone is truly injured? Finances? Good God the finances? Imagine the massive amounts of paperwork and money needed. How would a smaller nation like mine possibly afford such costs. And What would define incapacitated? I broke my leg in 12 pieces, that could be incapacitating, but what if i have a job that uses my arms only? What about people who intentionally injure themselves? Would their be a cutoff point to care? Would their be a new tax to handle financial burden? does this apply to all jobs with the same amount of care offered?

Answers would be nice?

Well the committees question is not vastly important, given that they are staffed by individuals assumed to be competent and highly efficient. I'm not trying to be facetious, it's just that unless I"m making a grave error of interpretation here that other than being composed equitably and in the interets of the resolutions implementation. Equally, only if desired or essential is the number or type to be specified.

All other questions would be deferred to the national government.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

That would be all fine and dandy if it weren't for provision #6:

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 ultimately gives the UN complete authority over the interpretation of this resolution and gives them the final say on what a nation would be oblgated to provide, does it not?
No it does not. It's a comittee. What can comittees do? How can it 'enforce' the provisions? The comittee might recommend a certain interpretation but in the end what happens is up to your nation.

Snyde will not support this resolution. We firmly believe in the concepts of evolution and work towards the continued betterment of our people via natural selection.
However, this is not to say that we will inhibit the rights of the disabled. We just do not believe that it is in our governments best interest to be forced to fund such programs. If we were to install such a program, each case would need to be reviewed on a more case to case basis than this proposal allows.

Classman Honorate Adma
International Ambassador of Snyde

My dear evolutionist friends, have you ever heard of the theory known as "telic evolution"? It was proposed by OOC American philosopher Lester Frank Ward as a response to Social Darwinism, which arose to claim that the poor were going to eventually die off as a result of natural selection. It urged the wealthy not to donate to charity and fought any sort of government intervention on behalf of the poor. In a later form, Social Darwinism was used as a justification for Nazi murder of Socialists and Communists.

Telic evolution emphasizes the obvious fact that we are human beings. We have evolved enough where we have the capacity to care for one another. We are no longer beasts driven by instinct so much as creatures capable of caring and compassion.

We have passed far beyond the point where natural selection is a major guiding force in human development. We have civilization. We can care for the marginalized.

So let's.

YOU care for the marginalized. I am trying to get rid of them here!

YOU are a Nazi. I am a human.

YOU care for the marginalized. I am trying to get rid of them here!

I'd rather put them to work. For all I know, some guy in a wheelchair might invent the rocket that gets Ginet to the moon, and it would be rather short-sighted to deny him, and more importantly us, that chance.

This is nothing more than an attemp to co-opt the sovernty of our nation! How dare this scum-sucking bottom feeding group of limp wristed busybodies tell us how we are to treat our own citizens! The government of Draconian Daffiness has the right to conduct its internal business free from outside interference. This body needs to restain itself and concentrate on issues that are international in scope. The domestic issues of each nation are its own business. WHEN WE JOINED THIS BODY WE DID NOT SURRENDER OUR SOVERNTY! And we will protect our sovernty with FORCE if necessary!

We vote NO and encorage all nations to stand against this powerplay by the forces of socialism! The world doesn't need out of control do-gooders! It needs ORDER! Preferably under my leadership!

Have a nice day.

This scum-sucking bottom feeding limp wristed busy-body do-gooder socialist has defended your rights by trying to wipe out "Legalize Euthanasia" twice, has voted in strong favor of the "Abortion Legality Convention" and is the co-author of a resolution that would protect YOUR rights to use tariffs, embargoes and import taxes!

How about you defend MY rights for once?!

P.S. I have a nuclear arsenal...quit playing with genocide, evil-doers...

Well the committees question is not vastly important, given that they are staffed by individuals assumed to be competent and highly efficient.

You know what they say about "assume".

Reminds me of 2003 when Libya was the Chair of the UN Human Rights Commission :rolleyes:

No it does not. It's a comittee. What can comittees do? How can it 'enforce' the provisions? The comittee might recommend a certain interpretation but in the end what happens is up to your nation.

I realize that the UN could never force our Kingdom to do anything directly, but the last thing the Sprouch Kingdom needs is a UN violation...Dubya Bush has been itching to bomb us and this would only add fuel to the fire.

Inspections, sanctions, Security Council...WAR...all because we refused to provide a forklift for Homer :eek:

You do realize that it's up to the UNCAD, a group of medical and disability experts, to enforce this resolution, right? They aren't going to ask anyone to drop cash to buy fatso a forklift!

As far as the anti-committee nay-sayers go, wouldn't it tick you off if I submitted a resolution without making any provisions for its enforcement? This way, you might not have to pay a penny and there's plenty of room for discretion.

I could have made every nation's government pay for whatever the words literally demanded if I wanted to. Of course, it never would have passed.

You do realize that it's up to the UNCAD, a group of medical and disability experts, to enforce this resolution, right? They aren't going to ask anyone to drop cash to buy fatso a forklift!

As far as the anti-committee nay-sayers go, wouldn't it tick you off if I submitted a resolution without making any provisions for its enforcement? This way, you might not have to pay a penny and there's plenty of room for discretion.

I could have made every nation's government pay for whatever the words literally demanded if I wanted to. Of course, it never would have passed.

Given human nature, a commission made up of medical and disability experts is likely to have a bias towards ruling in favor of the disabled and/or the implementation of expensive new medical technologies...9 times out of 10.

Let's suppose bionic limbs became a reality (roughly six million dollars per case at initial launch ;) )... at what price point does it become reasonable for UNCAD to say that bionic limbs are a "right" for any disabled individual who would benefit from them? (i.e. via an UNCAD "enforcement" of the provisions).

Although their heart would be in the right place, I don't believe a commission that is mainly stocked with un-elected medical and disability experts would weigh their decision in quite the same light as the governments of individual nations...each with their own myriad set of domestic issues and spending budgets.

You know what they say about "assume".

Reminds me of 2003 when Libya was the Chair of the UN Human Rights Commission :rolleyes:

OOC: Strange things happen, it's true.

We vote NO and encorage all nations to stand against this powerplay by the forces of socialism!


Clearly the good Member hasn't seen all of the anti-protectionist clauses in many of the past proposals of late.

Have a nice day.


You know what? I'm going to have a ROTTEN day, JUST to spite you. Take THAT!

Yes, and bionic limbs would have to be "available" to the disabled. This doesn't mean the government has to pay for it. Go read the resolution again and find me one case where it says a nation's government has to pay. I'll give you a virtual cookie if you do!

YOU are a Nazi. I am a human.

False, a nazi is a "national socialist." I am not a socialist, nor do I think nationalism is that important.

As for human, that means nothing, I am a demon :P

Yes, and bionic limbs would have to be "available" to the disabled. This doesn't mean the government has to pay for it. Go read the resolution again and find me one case where it says a nation's government has to pay. I'll give you a virtual cookie if you do!

You're correct that it doesn't say a nation's government has to pay.

There could be some argument as to what you mean by "available"...I assume you are actually referring to "access" if I quote the resolution directly. The Kingdom of Sprouch lacks the technological infrastructure to have a bionics medical facility on it's own soil, so hopefully the fact that we allow our citizens to travel anywhere they want to in the world, satisfies the "access" requirement.

By the same token, "access" to workplace technologies can be satisfied in a similar way...neither the government nor the employer would be required to spend a rabbit...just open up the import laws to ensure disabled persons can buy the latest high-tech gizmos from the more technologically advanced nations.

We don't have elections in Sprouch, so no concerns about voting technology :) .

Perhaps in the long run, the Kingdom could support this resolution. We won't be re-joining the UN right away, but maybe later, after we have a chance to sift through a few some other resolutions :cool:

This scum-sucking bottom feeding limp wristed busy-body do-gooder socialist has defended your rights by trying to wipe out "Legalize Euthanasia" twice, has voted in strong favor of the "Abortion Legality Convention" and is the co-author of a resolution that would protect YOUR rights to use tariffs, embargoes and import taxes!

How about you defend MY rights for once?!

I trust your support of the ALC will continue, as it is currently under attack by one such as the representative from Draconian Daffiness has described -- minus the limp-wristed bit, of course, as such comments sicken me.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I trust your support of the ALC will continue, as it is currently under attack by one such as the representative from Draconian Daffiness has described -- minus the limp-wristed bit, of course, as such comments sicken me.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The disabled should be harvested for body parts to heal people that can contribute to society and to help heal our military casualties.

So says the government of The Republic of The Taker.


This note was authorised by the leader and ruler of The Republic of The Taker.

A human being is a human being. It is the duty of us, who are able, to help our brothers in need.

I thought this was not about socialism?

Rp

Social progress and socialism are clearly two very different things.
True...socialism is the mandate and enforcement of "social progress," if that is what you would like to call it.

Why is there so much controversy over the rights of the disabled?
I have no problem with ensuring the availabilty of rights for the disabled. What I onject to is the utilisation of the United Nations to impose upon my nation's sovereignty in a matter which is not one of peace, security, or basic human rights. I believe the disabled should have freedom from discrimination. I also believe that the rest of my taxpayying population should have the freedom from having to provide for any special provisions necessary for those rights. If this resolution were not worded in such a manner as to make the state the fallbacl provider of these special provisions, I would have no problem. If it were worded in such a way as to permit disabled persons to access on their own the things they require, I would have no problem. I object to the disabled, or any other group, claiming that a requirement for special provisions of any sort is the same thing as equality. The disabled should not be actively held back, but it is not the resoponsibility of the UN to dictate that individual states be required to give them a hand up. And you have admitted yourself that in this resolution, the state is the fallback. That is an imposition upon my sovereignty, and I heartily object to that. I do not care if it is cheap, expensive, or free...my government should not be required to help in this matter.

Discrimination is wrong. The UN has repeatedly affirmed this. The disabled REQUIRE unique steps to be taken to fight discrimination against them. I do not believe that asking for basically accessible buildings and at least some form of access to relevant medicine and science is too much to ask!
It is too much to ask my government to be in any way responsible for providing these special concessions. And I disagree that a stairway is discriminatory. That is, I fear, a very lame, self-serving view of the world. The percentage of people who cannot use stairways is VERY small, and to design the world around the disabled is just not a reasonable idea. And as to medicine and science, my state provides no public funding for healthcare, for anybody. Am I discriminating against you? If I am forced to provide acces to care for the disabled, I would then be discriminating against the abled. I would then have to provide universal health care, and you have turned my state into a socialist moneypit. So, yes, it is too much to ask.


There is no requirement shoveled onto national governments to pay for this. Yes, I will concede that national governments will be a fallback if no one else provides basic services.
I intend to do some checking into whether this is even within the limits of the UN Charter. I believe it may violate respect for state sovereignty.

However, why do you continually see the government as a provider, rather than a coordinator? Who says that the national government cannot grant a mandate to a corporation, a non-profit organization, an advisory body or whatever to carry this resolution out? No, this proposal is not compatible with a 100% hands-off governing style. You're right. I am actually asking every government to do something at least minimally to take care of its people. Is that too much to ask?
Yes, this is too much to ask. My people take care of themselves, and do quite nicely at it. The UN has no authority to mandate that I either provide or coordinate, or facilitate or anything else.


Yes, this may cost you money. I'll grant you that also. Do you really worship the all-holy dollar and bow down to the golden calf so much that you are willing to make a sub-caste of second-class citizens in the name of profit? If the worst crime that I commit here is placing people ahead of money, then my conscience is clean.
I do not propose to make a second-class caste of any citizens, save those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves. The disabled who do not have the werewithal to provide for themselves have family and/or friends. It is not the job of the state to be the family and/or friends of its citizens. And I am happy that your conscience is clean. I am also happy that it is becoming more and more clear that you see this as a moral and emotional issue, and not a reasoned or logical one. I only hope it is not too late for enough people to see that the UN is not here to enforce morality upon members.

I really do respect your opposition to this measure, and I respect you as a nation. I don't mean anything personal against you, Realpolitika, as you have argued well and earned my respect. I just disagree with you.

The gloves are off.
No hard feelings at all, dear Tarmsden. There is nothing personal here at all. We are simply at opposite ends of the spectrum on this one. I am sorry you are so satisfied with being wrong. (Sorry, just kidding) It appears as if your vote will pass, but I do intend to challenge the resolution.

Rp

YOU are a Nazi. I am a human.
Much as I hate to say it, Nazis are human. Not very humanist, maybe, but still human and not feline or anything else. There are probably even some nice Nazis out there somewhere. Don't paint all Nazis as a sub-caste of second-class citizens.

Rp

Yes, and bionic limbs would have to be "available" to the disabled. This doesn't mean the government has to pay for it.
Should my government not have the right to decide if it is best for my nation to allow such mechanical enhancement of its people? And if you cannot afford it, and noone else will but it for you, why should I have to?

Rp

Should my government not have the right to decide if it is best for my nation to allow such mechanical enhancement of its people? And if you cannot afford it, and noone else will but it for you, why should I have to?

Rp

Hehe...that opens up a whole other can of worms such as human cloning and the like.

No doubt that if I were disabled and medical breakthroughs via human cloning could significantly improve my life, I'd be all for it. But we all know the heated debates, for and against such research.

I suspect that there are many governemts that would be uncomfortable with supporting many so-called advancements in medical technologies, that UNCAD would likely endorse.

Um.. Napoleon kind of was killed off and kind of deserved it... but yeah the rest of the great people you mentioned did deserve to keep living.

Timurlaine?!?

We will not comment on the current discussion of evolution and disability itself, even thought the Empire adheres to basic principles of evolution. Therefore, it is a non-issue for His Imperial Majesty's court.

However, it appears to His Imperial Majesty that the issue at hand would in fact present an undue burden upon themember nations of the UN. As Realpolitikia has already noted, in the absence of any competent provider, the requirements of the resolution fall to the State, being the sole body capable of fulfilling said requirements. His Imperial Majesty agrees with Realpolitikia in this regard, that the resolution at hand would be and unwarranted intrusion into sovereign nations that is in violation of the UN Charter.

However, advancing further, we take issue with the proposal's de-emphasis on personal responsibility. His Imperial Majesty grants that disabled persons face difficulties in life, but it is not the domain of the state to provide for people who are otherwise capable of sustaining themselves with some personal expenditure. Granting that "disabled people are people too," why is a disability suddenly a ticket to special treatment?

Suppose that a man loses his leg in a war. By definition, he is now disabled. Ignoring the State's current guidelines about veterans, that man will now be supplied by the state for all his disabled needs. Rather than be responsible for himself, a message that has been bandied across elementary classrooms in posters and slogans for ages, the man is now, in essence, a ward of the state because he relies on the State to provide for him. His Imperial Majesty does not feel this is acceptable. Granted, there are some exceptions and extreme cases, but the American Congressional involvement with the Terri Schiavo case should prove to be an example of where legislating for a small minority goes awry.

Finally, redundancy. As it is with UN nations, there are already proposals on record that outlaw discrimination, enforce equal rights, etc. The current proposal is unnecessary, as it presents an undue burden upon the State and reduces emphasis on personal responsiblity. His Imperial Majesty will gladly debate on the issue.

His Excellency
Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador of His Imperial Majesty Allech-Atreus to the United Nations

What is to stop your State from passing it's own legislation which passes the burden on to businesses. So if they fail to do so, the State can then fine the businesses and make some money out of it? Afterall, they'll still be fulfilling the act.

Jeez, I hate having to think like a duty-shirking money-grubbing state.

What is to stop your State from passing it's own legislation which passes the burden on to businesses. So if they fail to do so, the State can then fine the businesses and make some money out of it? Afterall, they'll still be fulfilling the act.

Jeez, I hate having to think like a duty-shirking money-grubbing state.
And if a state does not permit private enterprise?

Jeez, I hate having to think like a self-responsibility-shirking, money-hungry socialist.

Rp

Well done, Tarmsden, you have managed to get your resolution through by a substantial margin. It appears that many were spellbound by your passion, which I cannot help but admire. The issue is not finished, however.

And UNCAD will not be permitted access to the United States of Realpolitika.

Rp

If there's no private enterprise it's hardly a problem, 'The State Provides.'

'Money-hungry socialist' is an interesting paradox.

Thank you to each and every one of you who, through your approval, votes, debates, comments, edits, questions and even opposition have made this resolution what it now is: UN law. I am sincerely glad that so many have rallied to support such a critical and badly-needed resolution.

Before leaving this debate to move on to larger things for the future, I would like to leave you with this: please have the wisdom and creativity to see beyond black lines and government budgets when it comes to this resolution. There is a reason that there are so many debates spawned from the wording of the resolution. This will provide it with a flexibility that will make it more than just an unfunded mandate or an emotional statement. Let us make it what it truly can become: a piece of legislation that serves as the global cornerstone for equal rights for the disabled and all those in need. Let us make it a piece of legislation that rises above sectionalism and factionalism. Let us give rise to a new debate: one about the rights and duties that every nation has to provide for its citizens, and where that responsibility falls.

This new debate, enacted over countless forums and through countless proposals, may well be the most important legacy of the effort on behalf of the "Rights of the Disabled." I believe it should be.

Sincerely yours and thank you from the bottom of my heart,

-Pesse Sesto, Comrade Executive of the People's Republic of Tarmsden

Congrats

Not only is this plan prudent for the disabled peoples of the word, it is also beneficial to all citizens at large. By enabling these people with disabilities to more freely participate in the economy, there is an increase in the amount of capital circulating throughout the system. This will boost the economy, thus being beneficial to everyone, not just the disabled. All compassion and decency aside, this act should at least be supported for its economic stimulation. There is no legitimate reason why there should be opposition to this bill. Kudos to Tarmsden!!!

To all of the bill's supporters, thank you yet again. Please check out the Disabled Care Accreditation Act, as it is another valiant effort coming through the forum right now for the disabled.

Not only is this plan prudent for the disabled peoples of the word, it is also beneficial to all citizens at large. By enabling these people with disabilities to more freely participate in the economy, there is an increase in the amount of capital circulating throughout the system. This will boost the economy, thus being beneficial to everyone, not just the disabled. All compassion and decency aside, this act should at least be supported for its economic stimulation. There is no legitimate reason why there should be opposition to this bill. Kudos to Tarmsden!!!


You have very flawed views of economics... it hardly aids the economy to spend millions on average per person for what all of this costs and then have that person on average not prove productive on a tenth of it.

Congratulations Tarnsden, for giving all economies which follow the UN in good faith a taste of the problems your own makes for itself.

Now to figure out how to mute this out without good faith :p

1. Hmm.. considering how all institutions open to the public cannot discriminate... well let's see here, the public is everyone right? Seems like the most profitable solution is to increase discrimination, by reducing the accessibility of any institution having a problem with it from "open to the public" to "open to all able applicants..."
Congratulations tarnsden for increasing discrimination from the private sector :p

2. A "right" to education "comparable to that of their peers?" Fortunately the only education any of my people have a "right" to is propaganda, everything else they have to earn, so no issue, I'm not about to deny the disabled that

3. They can be as independent as possible, everyone is independent, so no issue :P

4. "reasonable" in Whateveryouwantethian english is already a mild profanity proxy referring to "meaningless wussy."

5. We have free trade, so they have access to whatever they damn well please, whether "relevant technologies" or weapons with which to attempt and fail a revolt.

6. UNCAD can be created if they want, but the enforcing they get to do is limited to their money (which they can do whatever they want with).

As for the last clause, I'm afraid I can't help ya, it is an evil violation of human rights to say you cannot "construe" sometyhing as being something, especially the truth. Is Tarnsden the land of the Thought Police? Or maybe a Nazi? :D

It helps any economy in the long run to turn 10-20% of the general populace into workers, customers and tax-payers.

If your businesses are so set on discrimination, then yours is truly a sad nation, I'm sorry to say. That they would increase discrimination to fight human justice is pitiful.

You may define "reasonable" as you want. That's why the UNCAD exists: to prevent you from calling it quits whenever you stop feeling like discrimination.

The resolution says that this proposal shall not be construed as a block to further human rights. It's a legal tactic used by everyone to prevent gross misinterpretations of good legislation (OOC: the 14th Amendment being used to disband unions and preserve monopolies). It's needed here to make sure no more harm is done than good.

There is no concept of justice in my nation's goals, justice opposes liberty.

Your economy is such that you cannot honestly claim that anything helps an economy.

And in case you are wondeirng, my country is not founded on discrimination. Yours is. The only discrimination in whateveryouwanteth is when someone discriminates against themself by not being competent.... and the discrimination that this resolution mandates. giving special privileges to the disabled is discrimination.

Legal tactic or no, the last clause still opposes free thought.

and BTW 10 to 20% is a flawed number, less than one percent of Whateveryouwanteth is disabled thanks to natural selection.

I would like to congratulate you on your successful resolution. Yes, I think in the short term there will be a cost to this (but isn't there a cost to anything worthwhile) but I can see that more people than just the disabled will benefit from these efforts. Many years from now, when the present deligates are no longer as young as they are now they may be exceptionally happy that they were convinced to implement those little things like ramps and automatically opening doors and many other things that handicapped people require in order to be effective members of society,

OOC: The US has been significantly better as a result of laws for the disabled. In my one trip to London I was impressed by their efforts to help the visually impared, through talking lifts, and beeping walk/no walk signs. Making things better for the handicapped makes things better for everyone. For those who argue for survival of the fittest, I'll believe that when you eliminate the elevators, and make the stairs as steep as a Mayan pyramid.

The Nation of Ginet agrees. The initial costs will be difficult, and Ginet is not a rich nation, but I think the long-term benefits will be worth it. It's certainly better to have the disabled working productively than to have them collecting government checks! As far as "survival of the fittest" goes, injuries happen no matter how fit you are.

Ausserland congratulates the honorable representative of Tarmsden on the passage of this excellent resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

For Never Gone, I choose to have little funding for the police, and in the description of my country, it states that "crime is totally unknown".

Wrong topic?:confused:

Why on earth would anyone disagree with this?

disabled people have just as much right to do anything that anybody else can do

I've just proposed a repeal of this resolution. Please read it (currently on page 7) and share comments/questions here. Endorse and help promote if you agree; explain your criticism if you don't.

I obviously disagree with your repeal attempt. Your arguments about the majority's right to oppress minorities is deplorable! Would you also support repeals of legislation protecting minorities, women and homosexuals?

Not every nation is founded on the premise that all people are created equal. The UN, however, has a duty to defend all basic human rights.

I've just proposed a repeal of this resolution. Please read it (currently on page 7) and share comments/questions here. Endorse and help promote if you agree; explain your criticism if you don't.

Brilliant first move. Why not just introduce yourself by shooting a puppy? :p

Meh. I introduced myself by declaring my nation deadset against protecting freedom of conscience, and asking delegates if they enjoyed clubbing baby dolphins. And the Thessadorian ambassador's rack. :p

Meh. I introduced myself by declaring my nation deadset against protecting freedom of conscience, and asking delegates if they enjoyed clubbing baby dolphins. And the Thessadorian ambassador's rack. :p

I wouldn't have expected anything less of you. ;)

Your arguments about the majority's right to oppress minorities is deplorable!

When exactly did I argue for that?

My point was the opposite - that this resolution abuses the power of a majority. Somewhat paradoxically, it forces the majority to favor a minority group financially, as well as in terms of civil liberties. It's the curse of democracy - a majority can be just as tyrannical and oppressive as a single person.

I'm all for people helping out the disabled, but should it really be mandatory? Should the government be permitted to say "You have to contribute a certain amount of your income to the special treatment of the disabled, and we also have to favor them with special treatment in the work force and with health care?" More importantly, should the UN be permitted to force all of the member nations' governments to say this?

The UN, however, has a duty to defend all basic human rights.

I completely agree. I was simply pointing out that I believe this resolution crosses the bounds of the UN's authority. To quote myself, the UN should be dealing with INTERNATIONAL affairs. This resolution intrudes on the sovereignty of individual member nations.

Why oh why oh why-o?

Helping the disabled does not in any way, shape or form help a minority at the expense of the majority. The healthy and the disabled both benefit from such things as larger doors, handicapped ramps, talking elevators, beeping walk signs and so forth. It's more than wheelchair people that push the buttons to automatically open doors. Everyone benefits.

Helping the disabled does not in any way, shape or form help a minority at the expense of the majority.

Not in any way, shape or form? How about special education students going through public school systems? Each student in special education costs schools about twice as much as a "normal" student. Who bears the burden of this expense? All tax-payers. That would be the MAJORITY, spending to help a MINORITY. Get your facts straight; fallacious statements make you sound stupid.

"I'm all for people helping out the disabled, but should it really be mandatory? Should the government be permitted to say "You have to contribute a certain amount of your income to the special treatment of the disabled, and we also have to favor them with special treatment in the work force and with health care?" More importantly, should the UN be permitted to force all of the member nations' governments to say this?"

No, you don't have to spend a certain amount of your income to special treatment. Find me a passage in the resolution that orders or even implies that. Fight discrimination, make your businesses open themselves to all customers, make sure you don't deny the disabled access to helpful tech or med procedures, even if it's only by putting them in touch with foreigners, and you're in compliance with the vast majority of this. Yes, you have to have special ed programs, but you could always subsidize a company to do that. Yes, the UN can make governments do all these things.

Tzorsland- good point. New warehouse techniques in our nation, for example, use touchscreens and personal-performance displays to help the mentally disabled be productive workers. We've found that these things, when made available to all workers, have increased productivity across the board by making the workplace more enjoyable and allowing workers to try and improve on past goals. Universal design helps everyone.

No, you don't have to spend a certain amount of your income to special treatment. Find me a passage in the resolution that orders or even implies that.

Ok. . .

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;

A certain amount of people's income goes to taxes (except nations with no income tax, which is certainly not a majority).
Taxes pay for education (in most nations).
Special education costs more than regular education, and can thus be reasonably characterized as "special treatment."
Therefore, you DO have to spend a certain amount of your income on the special treatment of the disabled.


Fight discrimination

Is that to be made a rule, that everyone HAS to fight discimination? Is that not an oppression of freedom of thought? If you don't want people to discriminate, then convince them through YOUR words and YOUR actions the error of their ways; don't force them by law to hold your values.

make your businesses open themselves to all customers

Is the government now in charge of to whom PRIVATE businesses must sell their products?

make sure you don't deny the disabled access to helpful tech or med procedures, even if it's only by putting them in touch with foreigners

Is the government DENYING access by not explicitly granting them privileged access?

Yes, you have to have special ed programs, but you could always subsidize a company to do that

The money still comes from the government, which comes from the tax-payers. . . (see above argument for that).

Yes, the UN can make governments do all these things

Sure, if the member nations VOTE that it can do these things. I'm simply saying that we should vote that it CAN'T, because I believe it should NOT be able to.

All that said, unless there's a dramatic change after this post, I can see neither of us is going to be able to covince the other, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Thank you for the conversation.

Not in any way, shape or form? How about special education students going through public school systems? Each student in special education costs schools about twice as much as a "normal" student. Who bears the burden of this expense? All tax-payers. That would be the MAJORITY, spending to help a MINORITY. Get your facts straight; fallacious statements make you sound stupid.

This assumes all nations have public school systems. Cluichstan does not.

I was generalizing, because most nations do have public schools. My apologies.

The Afrani delegation protests this blatant disregard for the checks on the United Nations. We will not abide by this, though we are already doing much to bring the rights of the disabled to their full potential, no one tells us what to do. No one!

The Afrani delegation protests this blatant disregard for the checks on the United Nations. We will not abide by this, though we are already doing much to bring the rights of the disabled to their full potential, no one tells us what to do. No one!

I think you'll find the gnomes will beg to differ.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.