NationStates Jolt Archive

Next at vote.....oh the irony of the author's name almost makes up for the entire proposal.

Hearing Impaired Aid Act

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: We can not hear you

Description: Overview: The minority group of those with life-long hearing impairments often goes unnoticed in society. Since this group of people are frequently the most active, publicly, of any of the sensory disabled peoples (eg. People who are blind or mute) the governments of the United Nations Members should take actions to help them.

Mandates:
The Hearing Impaired Aid Act requires that all nations provide the following services/ accommodations to its hearing impair population within 5 years of this Acts passing.

1.) For the population currently attending Public/ Private Schools or colleges.
A.) A skilled interpreter must be provided for students that suffer from a profound hearing loss that amplification cannot help in through the use of auditory amplification devices (eg, microphones in conjunction with hearing aids).
B.) Auditory amplification devices must be provided to students suffering from a hearing loss that would benefit from the use of auditory amplification devices. Also, if needed, an interpreter may be used in conjunction for the more severe loss in this category.
C.) Also schools/ colleges must provide written copies of notes/ announcements to students at their request.
2.) For public Buildings:
A.) All libraries, museums, theaters, malls, or any other large place of public gather must support use of special amplification technology for hearing aids.
B.) If not already done, emergency systems such as fire alarms must use some sort of visual alarm system for people with these hearing impairments.

3.) Health Care:
A.) For those not able to afford hearing aids, ear or hearing assisted surgeries, and medical appointments, the government must provide these people with some or all of the money required to receive these services.
B.) Every hospital must have an audiologist on staff for availability of these patients.

After word: Everyone, including the disabled needs a chance for a good life in society. Do not leave those who can not hear.
Approvals: 127

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

I think I will vote for this just because I don't think it is going to pass and the irony in the name of the author is worth it. Even if it did pass I doubt it would effect my nation much anyway most of this is legislated already.(not saying I agree with this)

I'm going to have to await a response from Mikitivity's Council of Mayors for our vote on this issue, but I've flagged this pending UN resolution to their attention hours ago. Specifically I asked each of the representatives on the council to summary their canton's compliance with the following provision of the proposed resolution:

2.) For public Buildings:
A.) All libraries, museums, theaters, malls, or any other large place of public gather must support use of special amplification technology for hearing aids.
B.) If not already done, emergency systems such as fire alarms must use some sort of visual alarm system for people with these hearing impairments.


Though I could be wrong, I suspect that most of Mikitivity's cantons are not in compliance with this clause yet, and given the large number of public facilities in Mikitivity (including virtually every train station ... and the Mikitivity Bahn is extensive to say the least), chances are high that the costs of the phased implementation of this clause within 5 years time (also a clause of the resolution) will be expensive.

That said, I can say that Mikitivity does support addressing the needs of the hearing impared, and the reason I've flagged this resolution to the attention of my government is that this is a serious issue that we'll have to address one way or another.

Howie T. Katzman
-Confederated City States of Mikitivity

I do enjoy helping the people who need it, but this is just micromanagement. Are the hearing impaired not covered by Rights of the Disabled?

I do enjoy helping the people who need it, but this is just micromanagement. Are the hearing impaired not covered by Rights of the Disabled?
Not on this level, I think. I voted for the resolution, but it does mandate a lot of very specific things.

What a load of well-intentioned, but condescending and micromanaging gator dung. I'll be voting AGAINST. And these hand gestures are just because I'm not sure the author can hear me.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

The Most Serene Republic of Betrickerment supports the sentiments expressed by the wise and insightful Norderia.

Though laudable in its aims the proposition pays little attention to the needs, abilities or alternative solutions presented by differing cultures.
For instance, in Betrickerment, we greatly prize silence and regularly commit significant proportions of our GDP to reducing the dependancy of the hearing population on auditory communications. Our annual flash-card festival and national waving week are just two such initiatives.

This issue is one which imposes onerously on the individual autonomy of Member Nations and Betrickerment, for one, puts its fingers in its collective ears and sings "la la la"

Gwenstefani has voted AGAINST this proposal.

This is really a national issue, and is not appropriate for the international arena where the economic and social development of states varies greatly.

In countries that are struggling to provide adequate education services to the population as a whole, it should not be compulsory for them to provide such specialised servies, else it will be at the expense of the majority.

While it as an admirable idea, perhaps there should have been a clause that addresses this issue.

However, differing nations may still prefer alternative solutions and a uniform answer should not be enforced on all- some may opt for special schools for the hearing impaired as opposed to having to hire an interpreter for every school. Even Gwenstefani would baulk at this expense, despite our economy being so strong.

Dashanzi will be voting against.

Asiatic states concurs with the rhetoric of Gwenstefani and acknowledges the contribution of HotRodia as well.

While effectively providing for the rights of the hearing inpaired in an admirable fashion, one must consider that it does not discriminate against countries with a struggling economy and those that have extreme amounts of money to spend.

Another point to consider is that it requires hearing aids and proper as well as interpreters for those attending private schools, instead of just public schools. This seems to be fairly demanding of many countries, as the entire concept of private schools is that they are minimally regulated.

Furthermore, it does not give proper direction with regards to the healthcare section - the language seems quite lackadaisical, e.g. 'some or all' able to be construed as a dollar for every hearing aid or, contrawise, paying for every hearing aid.

Thus, through a combination of unwise wording, interference with private schooling in the Asiatic States, and the lack of consideration of the different U.N. members economic standings, the Asiatic States must regretfully vote against the resolution, erstwhile hoping that a better resolution does allow help for the hearing impaired without being overarchingly micromanaging and inconsiderate.

It's not bad. It kind of makes me feel all fluffy. *shudder* I need to go cleanse myself now.

Razat votes against. Although we are sympathetic to the problems of the hearing impaired, due to a significant number of Razatians who, er, work with explosives, we think this should be a national issue, not international.

Don't take no genius to figure this one out ...

AGAINST.

Our nation strongly supported the excellent "Rights of the Disabled" resolution, which mandated accommodation of those with disablities of all sorts in a measured, reasonable way. This one is intrusive micromanagement carried to its most ridiculous extreme. Ausserland has voted NO.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

And another nation votes 'AGAINST'...

("NatSov, micro-management, costs to economies")

And these hand gestures are just because I'm not sure the author can hear me.

And so can the rest of us, but I refuse to pitch a fastball into Cluich's head! I'm rather shocked you'd even suggest such a thing!

Bob holds up a sign which reads, "Against, NatSov, micromanaging, blah, blah, blah."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Razat votes against. Although we are sympathetic to the problems of the hearing impaired, due to a significant number of Razatians who, er, work with explosives, we think this should be a national issue, not international.

This proposal is an attack on the national sovereignty of all UN member states! It needs to be rejected!
It is not up to some UN Delegates to decided who governments should take care of their people....that's what governments are there for!

I urge everyone...VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION!

Daniél de Brex
President of the Dominion of Bezad

The Republic of Awesome Otters was ready to vote this in until it came across this:


"A.) For those not able to afford hearing aids, ear or hearing assisted surgeries, and medical appointments, the government must provide these people with some or all of the money required to receive these services."

We believe it is not the governments place to provide citizens with medical care. One should be able to take care of oneself. That includes paying your own medical bills and not relying upon the government for everything. How can you build a strong nation when none of your citizens understand the value of self-reliance?

Because of this we have voted AGAINST this proposal.

Might I suggest a re-write?

The United States of Nerdy individuals supports this resolution on the basis that it is the duty of governments to aid their people. The hearing impaired are sufferin a disabillity, and it is the duty of us as leaders to provide them with aide.

However, I do not agree with the clause stating private companies (theaters and such) should be forced to provide these services. I would suggest a rewrite, though we do not wish this minor complaint to get in the way of this resolution passing.

The People of Jacobic must also vote against this proposal. Although its intentions are admirable the cost is too high and it is most definitely infringing on the sovereign rights of the nation.

Also why are the hearing impaired helped more than say quadriplegics. If this proposal passes it will just be the beginning of all other handicaps wanting their governments to pay for all their medical expenses.

This proposal is not only a grammatical nightmare, it's just plain a stupid idea. The UN has no business telling governments that they have to buy their citizens hearing aids. It's stupid proposals like this passing that make me not join the UN.

I feel that the proposal isnt that good at all. i understand your concern for the hearing impared, but that is surly upto the nation to decide what is done about it, not the UN. i beleive that it would cost too much money to do so, and therefore have voted against it.

Woohoo!! Time for some UN Cards!!

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/unflagrevised5bd.gifhttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/new8ey.pnghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/pay.jpg

This is in regards to you JOIN REVEAL AND REPEAL TODAY that you have in your sig Jey.

I have registered, I am still waiting for validation.

Now, for the proposal, I'm against it for NatSov reasons, yadda, yadda, yadda. It makes me sad to see the votes that are For this. Maybe I'm just bitter.

Kaigan Miromuta, the Ambassador from the Kirisuban Empire takes the stand and speaks.

"after consulting with my government we are casting our vote against.

This issue is already covered by 'rights of the disabled' and is pure micromanagement.

Nothing more and nothing less"

(Cashiek is my UN nation.)
I voted against this. This is just an example of how the UN is trying to control the internal affairs of its member nations are simply too poor or have matters more pressing than to divert their attention to such a minority. It's the responsibility of the person to make sure they are ready to go out into teh world with their disability and the responbility of the government to decide whether or not their welfare budget can withstand such demands. It is not teh responsibility of the UN to monitor what happens to disabled persons in every individual nation.

Might I suggest a re-write?

Yes, in fact, even if a resolution passes, despite the fact that we may not amend resolutions, drafting up an alternative gives repeal/replacement authors something to build on. It also helps to define your government's reservations with the current resolution.

Mikitivity is still undecided.

This is in regards to you JOIN REVEAL AND REPEAL TODAY that you have in your sig Jey.

I have registered, I am still waiting for validation.

Validated. :D

Validated. :D

YAY!!!!

i was fine with this proposal, and i still voted for, but the last part is going to be costly for those governments in the UN that have poor economies. There are so many people in the world who cant afford all the benifts of hearing care, and making governmets pay for it is very expensive

I'm sure every nation already does what it can in these situations. Also, why only the deaf? Why not the blind, dumb, or crippled? Well, I guess the dumb don't need as much help, but..
Anyway it's kinda hard to take this issue seriously considering the name of the nation that proposed it >.>

I'm not too sure... This resolution isn't very well written, and I think I can pick some serious holes in it (even if it does mean well):

A.) A skilled interpreter must be provided for students that suffer from a profound hearing loss that amplification cannot help in through the use of auditory amplification devices (eg, microphones in conjunction with hearing aids).

I know it's common sense that this is talking about a sign language interpreter, but it doesn't make it specific. If I were to be really cruel, I would simply make someone interpret into a different language. That's probably cheaper than getting a sign language interpreter.

And besides, why should my nation have to equip every school with a single deaf child with its own interpreter? In Makaar, there are schools for the deaf and schools for the blind, simply because to mix them together would a) be unfair on the hearing majority and b) by a strain on an already-stretched education budget. That way, a team of interpreters (one for each class) works in the deaf schools, rather than an interpreter in every single school across the land with a single deaf student.

B.) Auditory amplification devices must be provided to students suffering from a hearing loss that would benefit from the use of auditory amplification devices. Also, if needed, an interpreter may be used in conjunction for the more severe loss in this category.

Another massive strain on the education budget. Deaf people - all deaf people - in Makaar are provided with hearing aids by the government, and due to the demonetarian economic system that exists in Makaar, they are free to the people, though the government still has to pay for material from abroad to construct the equipment to get the material to construct the equipment that makes the hearing aids.

C.) Also schools/ colleges must provide written copies of notes/ announcements to students at their request.

My god, how this will be abused by my students. With a population of about 3 billion, of which about 400 million are school-aged children, if those children start requesting written notes just for the hell of it, the cost will be huge. Not just the cost to my education budget for having to get the paper, but also the cost to the environment for the amount of trees that will need to be cut down.

If the above said "All schools/colleges must provide written copies of notes/announcements to deaf students at their request" then maybe.

2.) For public Buildings:
A.) All libraries, museums, theaters, malls, or any other large place of public gather must support use of special amplification technology for hearing aids.
B.) If not already done, emergency systems such as fire alarms must use some sort of visual alarm system for people with these hearing impairments.

Reasonable enough, though a "visual alarm system" isn't very specific - it could just be a blinking light on a fire alarm, and if that's installed in the home of a deaf person, it won't be very useful during the night.

3.) Health Care:
A.) For those not able to afford hearing aids, ear or hearing assisted surgeries, and medical appointments, the government must provide these people with some or all of the money required to receive these services.
B.) Every hospital must have an audiologist on staff for availability of these patients.

I already provide them with the hearing aid itself - this resolution doesn't cater to the 100% tax rate nation! Now I have to give deaf people money! And technically, since no person in Makaar has any money, then no one can afford a hearing aid. Again, this can be abused - it doesn't say "any deaf person not able to afford a hearing aid", it just says "those not able to afford a hearing aid".

I vote nay.

ok I voted for this in the UN becuase at heart I am a socialist... however this resoloution shoudl ahve been better written. It should have left more room for individual government decisions based ont he populations thoughts on the matter.:gundge: :confused: :fluffle:

The expense for those nations unable to bear it will be far too great. This resolution is beyond invasive and has nothing whatsoever to do with international issues. If the deaf community wishes to avail itself of the opportunity for international cooperation, their various (and well-funded) foundations are surely far more capable of that than any government entity could be.

I voted against.

Again like so many other proposals, this is not a matter that should be controlled by the UN. (obviously not saying the impaired don't need help, but the UN is not the right body to regulate that aid.)

it isn't fair to mandate nations, especially developing ones, to divert tax money from developing infrastructure and providing for its citizens to a group of people that make up a small minority.

And another nation votes 'AGAINST'...

("NatSov, micro-management, costs to economies")
Thank you for stating it so well. We concur!

Micromanagement = suck.


(Just wanted to reiterate my position)

If you own an iPod...you might want to support this Resolution...



I SAID "IF YOU OWN AN IPOD, YOU MIGHT WANT TO SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION!"


Sometimes I understand why they call them "Deaf and Dumb".

You know, I find myself shocked at the number of people who have said that they voted for the proposal yet wish that it were written better. If you're reading this and you feel that way, I've got a news flash for you. If this passes, It can't be rewritten! Everyone who feels like this needs to be rewritten needs to be voting AGAINST so that it can be rewritten.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This thing hit quorum? Wow.

Oh, if I was in the UN, I'd certainly vote against. Socialism makes my teeth hurt.

"Socialism makes my teeth hurt," is one of the funniest things I've heard... let me think... oh, I don't know, an indeterminate amount of time. Well done, lol.

I'm hoping the author at least reads this discussion thread.

It is a bit troubling to think that a resolution could approach a supermajority without the sponsor visiting the UN forum.

Mikitivity is still undecided at this point.

I'm hoping the author at least reads this discussion thread.

It is a bit troubling to think that a resolution could approach a supermajority without the sponsor visiting the UN forum.

Mikitivity is still undecided at this point.

Micromanagement = suck.

The People of Jacobic must also vote against this proposal. Although its intentions are admirable the cost is too high and it is most definitely infringing on the sovereign rights of the nation.

Also why are the hearing impaired helped more than say quadriplegics. If this proposal passes it will just be the beginning of all other handicaps wanting their governments to pay for all their medical expenses.

May I suggest creating a resolution geared towards quadriplegics if you are worrried about inequity?

Look, you should be providing help to the hearing impared, quadriplegics, autistic, etc. already. I am glad to see the U.N. being involved with the health care of it's members, and may I say, it's about freaking time!

Not that I use Jacobic's argument here, but I can respond.
Nerdy Individuals']May I suggest creating a resolution geared towards quadriplegics if you are worrried about inequity?
And then the paraplegics, blind, mute, pigeon-toed, club-footed, and every other handicap. Such was his point.

Look, you should be providing help to the hearing impared, quadriplegics, autistic, etc. already. I am glad to see the U.N. being involved with the health care of it's members, and may I say, it's about freaking time!
Providing reasonable help has already been covered by Rights of the Disabled. This Resolution is just micromanagement that singles out one of many disabilities, justifying the choice by the level of activity people with that disability achieve. It also mandates some unreasonable things (an auditory doctor at ALL hospitals? Not a chance. And don't nobody question Norderia's healthcare system. It > you.

And don't nobody question Norderia's healthcare system. It > you.Oh yeah? I look forward to the Healthiest rankings... ;)

Oh yeah? I look forward to the Healthiest rankings... ;)

Well you're old, so shutupa you face.

(Norderia's at about 600)

We find this proposal mandates to much as many of the things are not always needed as noted.. An audiologist in every hospital.. this would be costly and not always needed.. same as saying one needs a translator for all languages staffed on a hospital because one peason may one day come in who speaks Zx27A4... or some other odd language. Also an audiologist would not always be the one to help these people explain why they are at the hospital so why not just recoginize staff nurses who can deal with folks who sign language or just can't hear at all. Then these would be called on when they are needed; otherwise they work in their assigned posts, not sit around waiting for somebody to come in who needs them. Also not all hospitals are set up to deal with deaf people..

Thus are we to staff a pimpleoligist in every hospital because somebody may end up with one on their ends!

I can understand the fire alarms being visual and such for these and most places they are both visual and audio alarms in place. Then you have those that have none at all. These we could see working on something to insure some form of alarm system is in place in large buildings but not just because one deaf person may come into that building...

So we are against this..

Zarta Warden,
Zeldon UN Ambassador

Our nation doesn't object to this in concept. Most of these are already enacted in whole or in part. However, our law does not allow to enact the requirements for private schools. Most of the schools are fully independant. Our education laws do not allow us to influence their curriculum, nor how to run their institution.

Oh, and Zeldon, I think you mean dermatologist, not pimpleologist.

we will vote against, since this issue is simply not fit for a UN resolution. While the UN may certainly advice me to improve health care, it's powers do not include telling me how to organize it in minute detail

If the UN still wants to do so, a resolution granting the UN such authority will have to pass first. Since that would be a direct involvement in the sovereignity of a nation, we will be against that too. Decisions in health care, tax level, education and other such matters are up to each nation to make.

We would politely ask the UN members voting in favor to mind their own business and not our business

Nerdy Individuals']May I suggest creating a resolution geared towards quadriplegics if you are worrried about inequity?

Look, you should be providing help to the hearing impared, quadriplegics, autistic, etc. already. I am glad to see the U.N. being involved with the health care of it's members, and may I say, it's about freaking time!

The representative, being very new to this Assembly, is obviously unaware of the "Rights of the Disabled" resolution, passed more than two months ago, and the several other resolutions concerning health care. Perhaps he should try learning a bit about the organization before he decides he's qualified to tell us what it's "about freakin' time" to do.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

What a load of well-intentioned, but condescending and micromanaging gator dung. I'll be voting AGAINST. And these hand gestures are just because I'm not sure the author can hear me.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

While the HotRodian's representative's closing remark was crude and uncalled for, we agree with his assessment of this proposal. We will be voting against.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: I myself am considered by most to be hearing impaired. I've got about 30% of normal hearing in my right ear and somewhere around 70-80% in my left. I personally don't, however, consider it to be an impairment, merely an inconvenience, as I've learned to compensate by reading lips (in two languages even). So there goes the usual "insensitive Cluich" argument... :p

The representative, being very new to this Assembly, is obviously unaware of the "Rights of the Disabled" resolution, passed more than two months ago, and the several other resolutions concerning health care. Perhaps he should try learning a bit about the organization before he decides he's qualified to tell us what it's "about freakin' time" to do.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

OOC: This past week I've created entries for numerous prior UN resolutions on NSWiki, but I've been focusing on 2003 / 2004 and a wee bit of 2005, since not everybody was around then. I haven't hit the Rights of the Disabled, nor have I yet added it to the Index of UN Resolutions on NSWiki. If others have even 30-minutes of free time, placing even the title of some of the more recent resolutions on the subject index, means I'm more likely to find an unlinked resolution and create a stub for it. Jey has been great about covering the UN Timeline ... but there is just so much out there!

Micromanagement = suck.

OOC: I know that ... I'm just holding out for somebody like you to send the Mikitivity Office of International Affairs a big beer basket with a note "Please be sane and vote no". ;)

OOC: I know that ... I'm just holding out for somebody like you to send the Mikitivity Office of International Affairs a big beer basket with a note "Please be sane and vote no". ;)


OOC: Consider it done. :cool:

http://www.ultimatebaskets.com.au/images/b-btq-beer.jpg

1. We need a repeal.

2. We might need some form of replacement. Bazalonia's International Sign Language proposal?

1. We need a repeal.

2. We might need some form of replacement. Bazalonia's International Sign Language proposal?

Due to recent diplomatic "influences" Mikitivity has now cast its vote against this resolution ... *burp* ... on the grounds that while we applaud the authors for coming up with a well meaning statement of international resolve to help the hearing impared, we feel that another resolution might better accomplish the same goal without ... *burp* ... resulting in so many different ways of addressing the problem.

The Gruenberger suggestion that this body revisit Bazalonia's International Sign Language proposal is one [pauses for a second to place an empty beer bottle on the Mikitivity UN table and immediately makes a grab for another bottle] idea that my gov-er-ment [struggles to open the bottle briefly] supports. I'd also like to suggest that a scaled down version of this resolution limiting its focus to regulating standards for accomidating for the needs of the hearing imparied during international transit is another viable way to not step on the toes of nations that wish to address this problem via their own means, and yet a way to specifically address an area that isn't covered. What rights do the hearing imparied have when their trip takes them over international waters? Ahhhhh ...

Howie T. Katzman

The idea is good. Caring about the disabled is important. However, the way the proposal is written is not adequate. The technology required for the public schools would be far too expensive for them to afford. Public schools don't have enough books and desks for everyone, let alone an interpreter. The proposal is a good idea, but should be rewritten more practically.

After carefull consideration and after hearing the debate so far on this topic, His Fordians will vote NO on this resolution, for the reasons already mentionned and that do not need to be repeated here.

The United Nations,

Strongly reiterating the sentiment of its Resolution #170, "Hearing Impaired Aid Act", that 'Everyone, including the disabled needs a chance for a good life in society',

However disagreeing that a resolution such as "Hearing Impaired Aid Act" is an effective means by which to secure the rights of the hearing impaired to greater opportunities,

Recalling its Resolution #160, "Rights of the Disabled", and especially its operative clauses 2, 4 and 5,

Observing that Rights of the Disabled has already placed upon UN members substantial obligations to facilitate equality of access to public services for the disabled, including those with disabilities related to hearing and communications,

Specifically noting that access to public buildings, adaptation of public education courses, and provision of health care and assistive technology, are already mandated by "Rights of the Disabled",

Hence acknowledging that the provisions of "Hearing Impaired Aid Act", whilst commendable, are wholly redundant by virtue of the passage of the previous, superior resolution, the steadfast commitment to which is now reiterated,

Believing it in the interests of the UN and its members to strike out redundant and superfluous legislation,

Remaining supportive of all attempts to promote the rights of the hearing impaired, and the disabled in general, and thus considering the possibility of resolutions focussing on other areas, such as sign language, research in medical technologies, or political enfranchisement:

1. Repeals "Hearing Impaired Aid Act";

2. Reminds all UN members of their obligations to provide for the hearing impaired under UN Resolution #160, "Rights of the Disabled".
That's one approach; I suppose the other is the "appeal to poor starving nations". Whilst perfectly reasonable, I think we may need that for other resolutions, so while there's a chance of repealing on redundancy, we should go for it.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Against, for reasons stated numerous times above.

Noting that the resolution is passing in spite of the overwheling negative poll here... I mean to shout:

Now this is fairly irritating. My once-excellent economy was already in decline (I am quite certain due to external forces such as this UN resolution and in no way the result of my own decisions regarding the governance of my nationstate) before this resolution came up, and this resolution is just going to cost us more even if it is - as it most certainly will be - immediately repealed.

If elections were underway in my nation, my vote against this resolution would provide ammunition for my political enemies (who would not point out that it is a bad resolution, but instead frame me as being insensitive to the needs of the hearing impaired). Fortunately my leadership has been such that we do not need to hold elections frequently, I'm just sayin.

This almost makes me want to propose a resolution demanding that all nations voting FOR this resolution become signatories on a public apology to all the citizens of the member nations (ooc: in game terms, nothing).

I do understand that a government is supposed to take care of all citizens, including those that have been disabled, however, I don't agree with this proposal. Our economy is just now stabilizing and we are only able to provide what is necessary. It is important that any additional spending be towards something that will bring in more money. Even if the hearing impaired were to get the special equipment, which we can't afford either way, there is not a very good chance they will become productive members of society. I fail to see why they need such benefits if they are not going to contribute to the economy. Therefore, I have voted against this act.

Phillip Lebel IV
Supreme Emperor

This resolution is very disingenuous. It holds the hearing impaired as more important than those of other impairments and forces governments to provide for them in ways other than they might have already established. This should be voted against, and in replace, a better more broad act should be drafted that encompasses all of the disabled instead of favoring one.

This should be voted against, and in replace, a better more broad act should be drafted that encompasses all of the disabled instead of favoring one.
Or, then again we could already have one. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421247&postcount=161)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Resolution #160 was good, but I always got the impression that it could be expanded upon, rendered more specific in the necessary areas. However, Gruenberg's points are valid and he makes a good case for viewing #160 as the definitive article for disable rights legislation, as mandated by the U.N. As such, I'm voting FOR this particular resolution, but I may well vote FOR a repeal too.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The Empire rejects this resolution.

I'm voting FOR this particular resolution, but I may well vote FOR a repeal too.Why not cut out the middle-man and vote against this?

Why not cut out the middle-man and vote against this?
Yes, please vote against this. It'll save us money on copy paper.
And we kind of really need to do that as we recently hired someone but in order to make our budget work we had to take the money for their pay out of our copy paper budget and as a result the paper we have on hand has to last us for the rest of the year.

Woody Adams
VP, Communications
UN Building Management

lol... building management is my hero.

Oh, and Zeldon, I think you mean dermatologist, not pimpleologist.Probably be a resolution to have one of them in place also the way these things keep coming up..

OH! and we just defined audioligist as a person who 'inspects toilets for leaking cracks with an echometer'. Thus now we can see having one in every hospital due to the number of cracked toilets that come up in them.

Once again the Holy Nation of Karbakirb is forced to watch as our land is forced to accept offensive laws that are nothing more than pandering to a certain feel-good mentality. This law is ridiculous. How is it that a proposal like this can even come up to a vote?

It is becoming apparent that the price of belonging to the United Nations is far too high for the few benefits.

This is yet another attempt to infringe on the sovereignty of our fair nation, and should it pass, we may be compelled to leave the U.N. over this.

Why on Earth should we give people who are hearing disabled advantages over those of other disabilities? This proposal does more harm than good, and we are voting against it.

Shame on the members who are voting recklessly on these costly and poorly crafted bits of legislature that are fit for little more than serving as kindling. This is not a matter for the UN, and those who give way to knee-jerk reactions without reading the proposals should be ashamed of themselves.

Minister Putregard Vanx
Undersecretary of Fierce Letters & Other Ugly Business
Holy Nation of Karbakirb

Why on Earth should we give people who are hearing disabled advantages over those of other disabilities?

Well I'm glad you're not voting for the Resolution, but that line there is just asinine.

Why not cut out the middle-man and vote against this?

Too simple for my liking, but the paper copying argument might shift me yet. Watch this space.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Sun Loyald stays sitting and another man stands up before the UN. Instead of speaking, he uses sign langue.

"Hi Mom!"

A click of a gun can be heard and the man looks frantic, his hands moving perhaps a bit to quickly but this is what he meant to say.

"This attempt to help the deaf people is admirable but as has already been pointed out, is not well written and expensive for the nations. To give one disability special status will open the flood gates, the disabled must be content with past resolutions that the UN have voted in. Cuation has voted against this and hopes the repeal is a success but doubts it will be."

I'm still looking for the person that made this proposal to come in and tell me their definition of a hospital so we can meet this part of their proposal once it passes as it looks headed that way.

B.) Every hospital must have an audiologist on staff for availability of these patients.

As we don't feel an AIDS or Cancer Treatment Center fits the bill as a hospital thus we don't need one staffed there. Nor does a Euthansia or Abortion Clinc meet the term hospital. Also just what is the expected definition of an audiologists as believe they test people to find they are deaf.. Thus the people this would apply to would already be found deaf thus not need an audiologist to test them for the problem..

As once they are found deaf then they would be refered to a proper place for treatment for that problem not sent to a proctologist clinic for treatment.

I belive this proposal is very bad. I am surprised it is doing so well in the voting. Anyway this proposal is common sense for urban area's and is extremly expensive for the less dense area's. My main city's have all this support for deaf people in this of course but my countryland dosn't and shouldn't have to. For example if you have a community of 100 people it is likly nobody that is deaf. Then why would it's library(an example only) need to have support for the deaf?

I base things like support for those who have hearing problems on supply and demand. If it is nessasary in that area I have it otherwise I do not. Through census's I find out where I need it and then I give it to those areas instead of blindly and ineffectivly giving audio support everywhere.

I belive this proposal is very bad. I am surprised it is doing so well in the voting.

Look at the proposal title, realize that many UN members vote solely on the basis of the title, and you shall no longer be surprised.

Look at the proposal title, realize that many UN members vote solely on the basis of the title, and you shall no longer be surprised.
I guess... I should see how the big places voted(they usualy have more thought put into there vote)...

Kolayodi is voting for this bill, and any others that I happen to come across that are along the same lines. I'm just waiting on the one for those who are blind and/or otherwise impaired.

It's probably too late to make a difference, but I'll post here anyway...

It seems most people on this forum agree that "Hearing Impaired" is a poor resolution. Why, then, is it passing right now?

I agree, the UN has no right to tell a nation's business that they have to aid the hearing impaired. For the most part, regulation of public building standards should rest solely with individual governments and the discretion of private business owners. Accomodating the needs of the hearing impaired, while important, will cost small businesses loads of money. And since many businesses can't afford updating their facilities in such a way, guess who's going to foot the bill? That's right: taxpayers. In a sense, the UN is violating Resolution #4 "UN Taxation Ban," by indirectly levying taxes on private citizens of member nations.

The Commonwealth votes AGAINST "Hearing Impaired."

It seems most people on this forum agree that "Hearing Impaired" is a poor resolution. Why, then, is it passing right now?

Because the vast numbers of deligates who vote have never been to this forum, will never be in this forum and could not give a hoot about the forum.

Because the vast numbes of deligates don't read resolutions, they just look at the cute title and vote based on their gut, which typically means that most resolutions are passed based on what the deligates had for lunch.

Against because why should some poor nation that has problems enough with economy go broke on this stuff, I think poor nations who adopt it should recieve aid.

We find that since this don't mandate that an audiologist be at the hospital 7/24 just on staff then we figure we can hire about 50 and put them on staff then schedule them to move from hospital to hospital as needed. As most hospitals today don't have but a few doctors around all the time anyway. Thus they are called as needed for emergencies but the few on duty all the time based on what skills are needed. Some doctors in real special areas may cover a region thus several hospitals not just one..

When doing their regular duties they will be assigned to a central clinic or center where they will see patients on a regular bases. They will be available staff for any hospital that may need them.. Thus will be called only to visit a given hospital.. or may be scheduled to visit for special classes and testing at certain ones so often a month..

Now when do you propose the one for those proctologists as we need these also in every hospital as many people seem to have problems they can help with...

I never thought Norderia would need a Creative Solutions Agency analogue...

I'm still looking for the person that made this proposal to come in and tell me their definition of a hospital so we can meet this part of their proposal once it passes as it looks headed that way.It would seem that since it's not defined, it's up to you.

While I don't like it when people go goofy with "creative" definitions (well, I'm going to define "mandates" to mean "you can ignore this thing if you want"), defining various clinics and out-patient centers as not-hospitals is perfectly reasonable.

And, really, your rotation idea isn't that bad, and is how many places deal with shortages of certain specialists (especially neurologists and psychiatrists).

Why not cut out the middle-man and vote against this?

Pssst. Simple answer: otters like beer too. ;)

Once again, the overwhelming majority of opinion is against a resolution that is passing by a substantial margin. It's enough to make someone cynical...or more cynical, at any rate.

Pssst. Simple answer: otters like beer too. ;)


Drink up!

http://www.itv6.org/photos/guinness.jpg

And vote against.

Because the vast numbers of deligates who vote have never been to this forum, will never be in this forum and could not give a hoot about the forum.

Because the vast numbes of deligates don't read resolutions, they just look at the cute title and vote based on their gut, which typically means that most resolutions are passed based on what the deligates had for lunch.

Sad, but true. We either need more thoughtful delegates, or different food in the UN cafeteeria. :p

The Commonwealth of Torqana votes against this resolution for two reasons:

1) "Since this group of people are frequently the most active, publicly, of any of the sensory disabled peoples (eg. People who are blind or mute) the governments of the United Nations Members should take actions to help them."
--Passage of this resolution using this wording is to imply that your disability is only worth the attention of the UN if you are the most vocal (metaphorically). This is to imply that the blind are not worthy of our attention merely because the deaf have been more tenacious. This is a bad precedent to set.

2) "For those not able to afford hearing aids, ear or hearing assisted surgeries, and medical appointments, the government must provide these people with some or all of the money required to receive these services."
--The UN would overstep it's authority to attempt to legislate the budgets of its member nations. The decision of whether or not to socialize health care is best left to individual nations.

We support the remainder of the resolution, but as the Assembly is well aware, we are unable to vote for part of a resoltion and against another. The Commonwealth of Torqana views this resolution as an erosion of our sovereignty, and discrimnatory toward persons with disabilities other than hearing loss. For these reasons, the Commonwealth of Torqana urges our fellow delegates to reject this resolution in favor of a more equitable, less socialist resolution.

Regards,
Iain Lewis
Executor, Commonwealth of Torqana

although i understand the well intentioned meaning behind this resolution, i believe it goes into far to much detail and requests much more than is needed, i will be voting against this resolution but would be happy to see a more general one in the future

1. Can someone make sure to grab a list of AGAINST votes as near to the end tomorrow as possible?

2. Would anyone be willing to help TG for a repeal, straightaway?

1. Can someone make sure to grab a list of AGAINST votes as near to the end tomorrow as possible?

2. Would anyone be willing to help TG for a repeal, straightaway?

I can likely stick a link to the repeal in with my TGs for the Chem Trans Stands. Kill 2 birds with one stone.

No; trying to campaign for two proposals at the same time has not worked in the past; I recall a joint campaign to repeal both Protection of Dolphins and Ban Whaling, which failed twice.

Gruen, I will endeavor to copy the list and PM it to you via, you know, one of the estimated 548 off-site boards we are both members of. It'll only be about 10:40 a.m. my time, so it should be easy.

1. Can someone make sure to grab a list of AGAINST votes as near to the end tomorrow as possible?

2. Would anyone be willing to help TG for a repeal, straightaway?

If you would like, I could help you with some of the telegramming. It wouldn't be polite of me to say no, considering that you were so kind to help me.

Agita has voted AGAINST this Resolution, even though it's going to pass. After that, the Government of Agita is going on vacation, since we're obviously not needed to manage the affairs of our own nation. The UN will do it for us.

THAT's funny... LOL

I am all for the rehabilitation of the impaired, but I think that it's not the place of the UN to make that decision. The act has critical failures in any case, and I'm opposed to it.

Darn Deafies I hates 'em!!! Voting no big time!

Drink up!

http://www.itv6.org/photos/guinness.jpg

And vote against.Um... I'm already against, but can I pretend to be unsure in order to get a Guinness gift box?

Um... I'm already against, but can I pretend to be unsure in order to get a Guinness gift box?

Message Recieved:
http://truevaluesigns.valueritesigns.com/vehicles/images/O'Douls%20Beer_full.jpg

Compliaments of the resolution's proponents.

The Commonwealth of Triderestan has voted against the proposed resolution at hand on reasons of perserving national sovereignty and lack of consideration to nations with poor economies.

As other nations have already stated, many Governments currently lack the funding to provide for such demands, Triderestan currently being one such nation. Our economy, though on the mend, is not glorious. Our already extensive attention to the well being of our citizens has stretched our budget to the breaking point, already once having faced economic collapse in our brief history.

And though it is a very admirable resolution, one that Triderestan would be honored to enact as legislation within her own borders, this is an issue that should remain just that; legislation within any given country's own borders. The Triderestani government applauds and supports any country that should decide to enact such legislation, if it can be afforded, to meet the needs of the hearing impaired. It shows great sensitivity and care for the hearing impaired community, sensitivity that should be shown to all walks of life. But as written, it strips UN member countries of sovereign rule and discriminates against poorer economies.

As such, Triderestan's official stance on this resolution is to oppose it and announce support for immediate repeal of the Hearing Impaired Aid Act should it pass, or alternative revision of the Hearing Impaired Aid Act to yield discression towards countires of lesser economies.

Well I'm glad you're not voting for the Resolution, but that line there is just asinine.

We feel it is a perfectly justifiable question.

Why should those with hearing disabilities receive treatment that sets them above others with, say, the inability to speak, or those who are blind?

To simply insult the thought stated without giving any to the contrary leads us to believe that either you did not understand the statement, or that you have nothing better to add to this debate than snide comments.

We welcome thoughtful discussion, and encourage it, but find nothing thoughtful or even bordering on debate within this remark from the representative of Noderia.

We stand firmly by our remarks made earlier, and would like to add that the U.N. is more than welcome to micromanage those nations who want such legislature forced down their throats, but we will not stand for it.

Undersecretary Vilhelm Shnaught
Minister of Retorts
Holy Empire of Karbakirb

Esteemed members of the United Nations,

Recognizing the importance of providing for people's differing needs, Helmsmark's policy is to keep civil legislation clear and understandable, providing targets and incentives and letting people work toward them in the ways they see fit. Another aspect of the Helmsmark policy is to treat all people equally, not promoting or demoting any group over another. The Resolution conflicts with both goals. Therefore, as a representative of the people of Helmsmark, I have the duty to vote AGAINST.

Sincerely,
Jan-Ivar Sigurdsen
UN Attache for the Republic of Helmsmark

Um... I'm already against, but can I pretend to be unsure in order to get a Guinness gift box?

Gift box on its way!

This law will mean a lot more money spent on a small portion of the population. Do we really want that? Don't be stupid, vote NO! :mp5:

This law will mean a lot more money spent on a small portion of the population. Do we really want that? Don't be stupid, vote NO! :mp5:

OOC: And the requisite first-post gun smiley... :rolleyes:

The resolution is not well written, and will be a broad based entitlement, rather than a targeted solution. I have asked my delegate to join me in voting no.


:rolleyes:

It seems to be that right now, what should be done is not posting agreement to the bill, though it is good to see people active, but to be telegramming the bigger nations that have voted for and ask them (nicely) why they would vote for such a bill in the first place.

For example, the delegate of the West Pacific, with 478 votes, has voted affirmative for the resolution. Convincing him to change his vote would close the gap from 2609 to 1653.

Yes, it is a bit late for this.

In future bills, what needs to be done is a fairly aggresive targeting of the nations that are voting for/against a bill, with at least a team of five people monitoring the numbers and asking them their reasons why they voted for or against a bill. While people do tend to vote on the title, they also tend to (at least some of them) listen to reason - and if we talk to them in time, then they may change their vote.

Perhaps one of the most important things is also to keep track of it early, because people also will vote with the majority. If the majority seems too big, then states will often just go with the crowd - something that's really bad for the U.N.

To simply insult the thought stated without giving any to the contrary leads us to believe that either you did not understand the statement, or that you have nothing better to add to this debate than snide comments.

We welcome thoughtful discussion, and encourage it, but find nothing thoughtful or even bordering on debate within this remark from the representative of Noderia.

There was nothing thoughtless about calling your notion that deaf people would somehow have an advantage over anyone else asinine. Maybe that was just me picking nits, but it wasn't just a flippant remark. I apologize if you were offended, but so too might others have been to see such a seemingly combative statement from you. I'm sure you meant nothing vitriolic by it, but really, consider disabilities and your use of the word advantage. Hard to consider it an advantage, at least, from my point of view.

The resolution Hearing Impaired Aid Act was passed 7,893 votes to 5,315, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Time for your repeal, Gruen?

Time for your repeal, Gruen?
Submitted. (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=hearing) I'll begin telegramming shortly.

Submitted. (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=hearing) I'll begin telegramming shortly.

Approved. :)

Approved.

Oooh. Very nice repeal Gruenberg!

The Commonwealth supports the repeal of this unnecessary and biased Resolution.

Maybe someone should start a new thread ...

I will be voting against this proposal as the population within my country has no need for education, museums, libraries, reading, writing, e.t.c. Shove them in a publicly owned factory creating weapons for the military, yes that is a much better use of my human resources as well as investments.... 'Personal mediator'.......PAH!!!!

3 blind mice']I will be voting against this proposal as the population within my country has no need for education, museums, libraries, reading, writing, e.t.c. Shove them in a publicly owned factory creating weapons for the military, yes that is a much better use of my human resources as well as investments.... 'Personal mediator'.......PAH!!!!
Uh, wrong thread, this one's for the recently passed Hearing Impaired Aid Act.

Submitted. (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=hearing) I'll begin telegramming shortly.

Approved.

OOC: So, how many people got their stats shafted by this resolution?

Omigodtheykilledkenny and I have both become Inoffensive Centrist Democracies.

OOC: So, how many people got their stats shafted by this resolution?

Omigodtheykilledkenny and I have both become Inoffensive Centrist Democracies.

OOC: ROFLMAO! :p

Greetings Nations, please forgive my etiquette as I am a newbie to Nation States and am still becoming aquainted with the ways of the world. I received a message from the "Compliance Ministry" stating the following: Laws have been enacted to bring the Republic of Adanp into compliance with the United Nations resolution "Hearing Impaired Aid Act".

Is there anything I need to do to address this? Forgive me if this is the wrong forum for this question.

Peace and prosperity to all,
Prime Minister of Adanp

Adanp']Greetings Nations, please forgive my etiquette as I am a newbie to Nation States and am still becoming aquainted with the ways of the world. I received a message from the "Compliance Ministry" stating the following: Laws have been enacted to bring the Republic of Adanp into compliance with the United Nations resolution "Hearing Impaired Aid Act".

Is there anything I need to do to address this? Forgive me if this is the wrong forum for this question.

Peace and prosperity to all,
Prime Minister of Adanp

Nope, the UN gnomes have already taken care of everything for you.

http://tastytronic.net/main/Gnomes.jpg

Ha ha ha! Gnomes! Thank you for your swift reply.

OOC: So, how many people got their stats shafted by this resolution?

Omigodtheykilledkenny and I have both become Inoffensive Centrist Democracies.

:) You've become Mikitivity.
Hooyah!

OOC: So, how many people got their stats shafted by this resolution?

Omigodtheykilledkenny and I have both become Inoffensive Centrist Democracies.

So did the Palentine, it seems. Cluichstan, on the other hand, remains as Capitalizt as ever. :D

OOC: So, how many people got their stats shafted by this resolution?

Omigodtheykilledkenny and I have both become Inoffensive Centrist Democracies.
I don't know the resolution had anything to do with this but I'm a Corrupt Dictatorship now.

So did the Palentine, it seems. Cluichstan, on the other hand, remains as Capitalizt as ever. :DNope, just the UN district of Palentine is "inoffensive" now. Both Palentine Proper and Cluichstan have retained their scummy corporate-style governments, but need I remind you, neither of you is in the UN?

[EDIT: HA! (www.nationstates.net/cluichstani_un_mission)]

Nope, just the UN district of Palentine is "inoffensive" now. Both Palentine Proper and Cluichstan have retained their scummy corporate-style governments, but need I remind you, neither of you is in the UN?

[EDIT: HA! (www.nationstates.net/cluichstani_un_mission)]

Oh bugger.

OOC: So, how many people got their stats shafted by this resolution?

Omigodtheykilledkenny and I have both become Inoffensive Centrist Democracies.

I'm still a Fluffy Civil Rights Lovefest.

I'm still a Fluffy Civil Rights Lovefest.

What the shit? :confused:

So tell me, Cluich... how does one go about ejecting fluffy spies from UNDEFCON? :p

Heh, my economy is STILL at imploded, thank ye very much!

So tell me, Cluich... how does one go about ejecting fluffy spies from UNDEFCON? :p

I press a button that drops their rep into the shark tank underneath the main assembly room in the secret bunker, all while I pet the white cat in my lap.

http://www.taxyworld.de/cat/blofeld-cat.jpg

How long ago did this thing pass? Talk about off topic.:p

"When Mr. Bigglesworth gets mad... People DIE!"