NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the official topic of the proposal under redraft: Rights of the Disabled (provisional title). This thread supersedes the previous thread. Please familiarize yourself with the briefing presented below.


A resolution mandating equal rights for the disabled (redraft, provisional title)
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: TBC
Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

Description:The World Assembly,

Alarmed that:
- Some member states or Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) deliberately impose inferior treatment against disabled people, whether it is access to basic services or employment, and;
- Poor or even non-existent level of financial support or social care may be available to lighten the hearts of disabled people.

Convinced that no matter how impaired a person may be, it is accepted in the principle of fair society that one has the same level of aspiration as an able-bodied person would possess.

Answering the calls for action to promote and enforce economic, social and vocational integration of disabled people in all walks of life by means of a resolution;

Implements “Disability Rights”, a resolution to protect the interests and ambitions of all disabled people in our world.

1. Defining a “disabled person” as anyone with:
- A long-term physical, mental or sensory impairment that substantially limits any of major life activities of an individual, or;
- A record or consensus of having such impairment.

2. Declares that all disabled people hold the undeniable right to equal opportunity in service, life and employment;

3. Obliges member states to perceive disability in a non-defamatory matter, as well as:
a) Preventing all organizations (state, public or independent) from unfair discrimination (treating a person inferiorly for having a disability, without justification) in all aspects including Employment, volunteering, management of land/property or organization, access to goods, facilities, services and education of all forms and health/social care;
b) Making satisfactory adjustments to their laws, policies, practices and infrastructure to accommodate people with different needs, thereby preventing indirect discrimination;
c) Providing satisfactory financial and care support for disabled people and to fund accessibility improvements for people with disabilities;
d) Respecting a disabled person’s right to equal treatment, aspiration and opportunity, and;
e) Banning the drafting of disabled people to, whilst allowing disabled people to voluntarily enlist in, the armed forces.

4. Further mandates that member states will not subject a person to an unfair trial or punishment in the judicial system simply on grounds of disability.

The terms of this resolution shall prevail in member states irrespective of any crisis, war or famine.

Applauds all member states that respect the rights of the disabled.


Development and Notes

This proposal was salvaged from The Empirial Borders' marvellous essay (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=574893) of a human rights charter for the WA. Of course many aspects of his essay were already covered by previous resolutions, but I couldn't bear to let it go without some serious work, so I got down to it.

We turned from this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14269393&postcount=1) to the one above. Originally a plan to promote equal rights in employment for the Disabled, I thought that a blanket declaration of declaring disabled people would be better.

This resolution is categorized as Human Rights, as this is a human rights resolution that pushes the civil rights stats up. This is what I want for the WA to be: a institution promoting freedom and conscience of thought and economics and so on. I do not believe that the employment of the Disabled would have any potential to cause the economy to fall (like Social Justice resolutions), in fact in some nations a positive effect due to something similar to this have been recorded. Human Rights is the best fit.

Okay, onto the World Disability Council bit, because I want the world to have a common understanding of disability. The issue being addressed is a scenario where one nation recognises something like, OOC, Autism or Down's Syndrome as a valid disability whilst another doesn't due to poor knowledge, whilst another deliberately persecutes those with them. IC, What it is planned is that World Disability Council, as a society, bring all the knowledge and research in the world together into one common agreement and cohesion, to be passed on from generation to generation and promoting this vital human right.

There is a reason why I am doing one equality resolution per sector for a good reason. Our ambassador Lulu Hilde Berlin has highlighted vulnerabilities of a common equal rights resolution, whereas if that common resolution was to collapse one day, the member nations could take advantage of this collapse at the peril of civilians, whereas having separate equality resolutions would minimise the risk because if one component failed, the others wouldn't follow. Furthermore, there is a need that each sector would need deep focus to have their needs and rights met correctly: for example extra help for women would be of little use for promoting rights of Nomads.

Therefore this proposal is part of a planned series of independent equal rights resolutions which will cover specific aspects such as: Women, LGBT, Ethnicity and Nomads. I hope you can help each other in the pursuit of my theory.

Yours etc.

Regretfully, the Federal Republic stands in opposition to this article.

Our main concern is with Article 4, which creates an excessive and unnecessary "World Disability Council," the duties of which are as ill-defined as they are confusing. In particular clauses a) and d) seem to overlap and usurp the role of the Compliance Commission, which is already charged with the tasks outlined.

In addition, clause b) appears to invite abuse of the interpretation of "disabled person," as already defined by this resolution. So, if one nation decides people suffering from "Bush Derangement Syndrome" qualify for aid for disabled persons, would the WDC then be charged with implementing this skewed definition in all member states? Because that's certainly what the language implies.

We equally regret that there appeared to be no thoughtful, comprehensive drafting process to iron out any potential flaws before this proposal went live. It occurs to us that Charlotte Ryberg's primary motivation may have been the desire to rush through another proposal with her name on it, rather than the need for effective legislation. We truly hope that such vanity was not the pretext for a resolution addressing a topic as important as protecting the rights of the disabled.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

Since the venue for this debate seems to have changed we will resubmit our comments from the previous debate.

We hope the honoured Ambassador for Charlotte Ryberg will accept our apologies. We were confused which draft of this resolution had actually made quorum.

We still maintain that this resolution is not well written enough or clear enough in its actual intent to properly address this issue. And the attempt to treat disabled persons as a separate subgroup of human beings with different rights to the rest of humanity runs completely contrary to morality in our opinion. Our opposition to this statute will continue.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Too much of a bureaucratical nightmare for the Palentine to support, so we will respectfully vote against.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Drafting on this began a full week before it was submitted. I'm not convinced 7 days is long enough for everyone to have time to consider a proposal. I admit I didn't comment on the draft during that time, but that was mainly because I didn't realize it was taking place in a thread a) started by a different poster and b) in which that poster had posted at least two separate drafts of their own proposal.

By the way, back in the old day of the UN, Tarmsden submitted a hastily drafted proposal very similar to this. They then had the good grace to have it deleted, and spent several weeks comprehensively redrafting it.

Clause 3b is a classic "unfunded mandate", and it could well require a substantial monetary outlay in some nations.

Clause 3e will certainly cause issues in nations which require adults to serve in the military.

Because of these two clauses, we feel that this is more than a "mild" proposal, and we cannot support it in its current form.

Can the honoured Ambassador for Charlotte Ryberg explain this wording- unfair discrimination (treating a person inferiorly[sic] for having a disability, without justification), when is it ever justifiable to treat disabled persons as Inferior?

We are highly disturbed by the implication that such justification exists.

Also this wording- " OBLIGES Member Nations to perceive disability in a non-defamatory matter," means nothing and is useless and therefore renders all the clauses which come after it meaningless also.

We must agree with some of the other respected Ambassadors, that this subject matter deserved much more time, much more effort and commitment and a good deal less vanity and haste.


Yours e.t.c.

Notice of strategic withdrawal:

In response to the comments, I immediately call for the graceful withdrawal for the proposal, but in part I have to admit that it has received very little attention from all sides of the assembly. (Change the pre-title to "REDRAFT") I call for all ambassadors to pay some serious attention in overhauling this proposal so that it can be of more satisfactory level of style. I will however stand by the component theory as I strive to find stability for the WA for the future. When the redraft is ready, we will need to re-telegram the WA Delegates including me.

Omigodtheykilledkenny: Do you think that the council should be completely abolished, and some parts of section four salvaged into an urges clause (like urges Nations to adopt a common understanding of disability)?

Section 3b is something I need to look at, although I am quite opposed to tax increases, I see that this clause will need more study. Same will go for section 3e because the significance of the military.

Please suggest ideas.

I for one would like something more then the authors subjective opinion "ANGERED by:
- Evidence that some Member Nations or Non-Governmental Organizations deliberately impose wanton or inferior treatment against disabled people, whether it is access to basic services or employment in a job, and;
- Poor or even non-existent level of financial support or social care that is available to lighten the hearts of disabled people."

This to me is a subjective opinion, back it up or do not bring it up. And yes I am in reality myself disabled, so I do know a bit about how it goes.

I would also like to state my agreeing with Omigodtheykilledkenny

I could revise the preamble to a concern, removing the evidence bit, to read:

DEEPLY CONCERNED that:
- Some Member Nations or Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) deliberately impose wanton or inferior treatment against disabled people, whether it is access to basic services or employment in a job, and;
- Poor or even non-existent level of financial support or social care may be available to lighten the hearts of disabled people.

This should hopefully reduce the known risks of it being openly questionable. The WA will not name the organizations that violate the concerns.

We will help the honoured Ambassador for Charlotte Ryberg write a resolution dealing with making society more accessible for disabled people and which addresses their needs as citizens.

But we will never accept the notion that disabled people's rights are divisible from universal Human rights. Disabled people are human beings before being disabled and many if not most ( O.O.C. I am officially disabled in real life so feel somewhat qualified to say ) would be deeply offended and worried at being treated as some sub-category of person with different rights to the rest of humanity, different needs maybe, but not different rights.

We will not help the honoured Ambassador right a resolution which contains separate and different rights for disabled people and will oppose it if one is written.

The way to make life better for disabled people is to make life better for all people.


Yours e.t.c. ,

We will help the honoured Ambassador for Charlotte Ryberg write a resolution dealing with making society more accessible for disabled people and which addresses their needs as citizens.

But we will never accept the notion that disabled people's rights are divisible from universal Human rights. Disabled people are human beings before being disabled and many if not most ( O.O.C. I am officially disabled in real life so feel somewhat qualified to say ) would be deeply offended and worried at being treated as some sub-category of person with different rights to the rest of humanity, different needs maybe, but not different rights.

We will not help the honoured Ambassador right a resolution which contains separate and different rights for disabled people and will oppose it if one is written.

The way to make life better for disabled people is to make life better for all people.


Yours e.t.c. ,

I don't have intentions of dividing the equal rights issue but if you prefer an all in one resolution then I am happy to comply, probably as the "Equal Rights of Man". You already have a draft covering this topic but I have a feeling that merging that and this together may make it better. "The Equal Rights of Man" is my suggestion for the title.

We are not writing an "equal rights of man" resolution or anything like it honoured Ambassador. It seems the honoured Ambassador is confusing certain concepts. Human rights are a set of specific rights in law which are secured to all people in all circumstances, they may include things like, a right to not be tortured, murdered or otherwise harassed, or the right to be able to strive to self betterment, or the right to free association, or the right to express themselves. These rights may be included in a single document or they may be legislated for individually.

We are in the process of writing a different kind of statute, that is one which prevents governments from discriminating against their country's inhabitants on for arbitrary and unfair reasons. This may well be included as a human right were one to write a complete human rights act, but it is not needful to do so.

So far this organisation has decided to address individual human rights separately and in detail rather than produce a single document of human rights which could only hope to mention each right without any detailed provision, and indeed due to length constrictions might well have to leave certain rights out completely.

We are far more satisfied that dealing with individual rights in the round and in detail in separate statutes will prove far more efficacious.


Besides all this it is not out of some desire to gather glory to ourselves that we write our resolution or oppose yours honoured Ambassador. But considering that your esteemed delegation took next to no interest in our work until it became clear that your own current resolution was highly defective and would prove useless and unpopular you can imagine how we might be reluctant to offer up the fruits of months of work to a delegation which seems unable to grasp the concepts involved in these issues and which thinks a resolution dealing with them can be knocked up in a week with very little regard for efficacy and as an exercise in public relations.


Under the circumstances we are sure you will understand, honoured Ambassador, if we do not regard the opinion of how our work could improved with the admixture of theirs in very high esteem when the state offering that opinion produced the resolution above with such fanfare.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Well, I wish to just to simply withdraw this proposal already submitted and see what the respected ambassador Urgench can bring in the furtherance of civil rights. At least I tried to see if it worked, but if the honoured ambassador's approach was better... then let it be.

Well, I wish to just to simply withdraw this proposal already submitted and see what the respected ambassador Urgench can bring in the furtherance of civil rights. At least I tried.


Please do not mistake us Honoured Ambassador. We are extremely glad to see another delegation endeavour to improve the lives of the citizens of this organisation's member states, and we applaud your intentions in bringing this issue to the fore. We are certainly not interested in winning an argument over approach to such projects and much more interested in actually helping other delegations, if we can.

As we have said, we will help you write your resolution if it is a qualitative improvement of conditions of life for any group in society and is clear in its approach and well considered in its effect.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Well, I wish to just to simply withdraw this proposal ...Then you better file that GHR soon. You only have a couple days to do so.

And to answer your question, yes, it is our preference that the committee be abandoned entirely.

I've submitted the GHR request, and once the proposal is retracted we can get down to the redraft. The WDC is to go in the new version. Or we could with Urgench and salvage whatever is left of this draft.

One thing you might consider is that the UN version of this applied only to 'long term' (12 months or longer) disabilities. I have, in my life, had impairments that have limited my 'major life activities', but none of them have been permanent. Being in a cast for a week is unfortunate, but not necessarily worthy of special legislative attention.

First, we are going to say goodbye for good to the following as these would be handed over to the Compliance Commission:

4. ESTABLISHES the World Disability Council, directing them to:
a) Enforce the terms of the resolution;
b) Catalogue, record, recognise and acknowledge all types of disability known to our world;
c) Promote the common understanding of disability and the disability rights, and;
d) Assist Member Nations and Non-Governmental Organisations in complying with this resolution.

As per the request of the honoured ambassador of the Quintessence of Dust, I have modified the preamble, such that the World Assembly:

1. DEFINES a “disabled person” as anyone with:
- A long-term physical, mental or sensory impairment that substantially limits any of major life activities of an individual, or;
- A record or consensus of having such impairment.

ANGERED by:
- Evidence that some Member Nations or Non-Governmental Organizations deliberately impose wanton or inferior treatment against disabled people, whether it is access to basic services or employment in a job, and;
- Poor or even non-existent level of financial support or social care that is available to lighten the hearts of disabled people.


The Rogue Nation of Deadly Irishman wholeheartedly disagree with this motion on the grounds that they concede anyone with a major disability to be unnecessary waste of government time, effort and money. Therefore any nation wishing, should be allowed to deal with these 'problems' in anyway they see fit.


"I gcróilí an bháis!"

The Papal Kingdom of Sanctaria is outraged that the delegate from the nation of Deadly Irishman would even suggest such a travesty. Those with disabilities are entitled to the same right as us. Perhaps it is the oppressed people of your country who should remove the problem - the problem being their backward government.

Moderators please update the pre-title of this thread to "Redraft". Cheers!

A few revisions to the preamble of the new version, generalising it so it would reduce citation problems:

ANGERED by:
- Evidence that some Member Nations or Non-Governmental Organizations deliberately impose wanton or inferior treatment against disabled people, whether it is access to basic services or employment in a job, and;
- Poor or even non-existent level of financial support or social care that is available to lighten the hearts of disabled people.

becomes:

ALARMED that:
- Some Member Nations or Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) deliberately impose inferior treatment against disabled people, whether it is access to basic services or employment, and;
- Poor or even non-existent level of financial support or social care may be available to lighten the hearts of disabled people.

Sanctaria would like to know whether the Judicial system should also be fair to those with disabilities. For example, it sometimes happens that judges dismiss the fact that the defendant has a disability.

Absolutely, in the "crime and punishment" point of view.

f) Refraining from committing unfair execution or purging of disabled people.
is replaced by:
4. Further mandates that member nations will not subject a person to an unfair trial or punishment in the judicial system simply on grounds of disability.
The advantage is that the new section four will cover more than just purging, but also the justice system.

In addition, the resolution should praise those who already implemented the principle before this draft.
Applauds all member states that respect the rights of the disabled.

Happy Holidays form the mind of Charlotte Ryberg!

One thing I need to address is how to make disabled people not appear as a separate sub-group of the human race, because that would be contradictory to my actual aim. Disabled people are just like other people except they need a little bit more help.

But, if you want an complete equal rights mandate in just one resolution, please say so.

Any ideas?