GOP blocks disability treaty

[eric/]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

To use your format for answering things...Your rejection =/= a non compelling argument or one that is wrong. It just means you disagree with it.

It is to me. You didn't provide any compelling reasons to me, as others did.

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

Un huh. I refuted the notion that this is a problem and asked for some examples where the UN was lording over the U.S. and you could provide none proving my point.

Me not providing any doesn't mean there aren't any, and it doesn't mean that setting a precedent could cause problems.

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

If the loudest voice in this thread over UN fears, can't think of examples where this is a problem, that you aren't doing a very good job of making your case.
Surely with all this Chicken Little "sky is falling" fear there must be SOME example to base that on. Right? Right??

Read above

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

No, instead all is being done is a game of bogeyman by people like Rick Santorum that you and Senate Republicans bought into.

It's always entertaining to me when I, a gentlemen that voted for Barack Obama in the past two elections, generally votes Democrat, and hates religion, is lumped in with people like Rick Santorum in some sort of shrill debate tactic.

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

Okay..which is it? First you said that because you cannot think of any it doesn't mean there aren't any, then in the next sentence you make the "fact there aren't real world examples" pitch.

I'm saying I can't think of any.

If you say that there aren't any, as a matter of fact, then that still disprove the potential for a problem.

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

When someone is being outlandish in their thinking, and proposing things that couldn't possibly exist, then yeah..you need to be able to point to some past examples otherwise it's just crazy made up fear mongering crap.

Well, I'm not being outlandish, so not sure who this is really meant for.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by iJohnHenry

"American is the leader in disability support, because they created so many."

Jon Stewart.

Precisely. And THAT is why disability varies. It is socially defined. Going beyond core services, many accommodations are locally defined on the micro-level. Macro-level policy is not well equipped to deal with this. Some of the best research that has been conducted on disability is qualitative data that comes from an ethnographer who asks "what it is like to have (the disability) in (a place or something historical sociocultural significance)?" Then they ask "what unique challenges this person/these persons face?" A person who was wounded in combat and paralyzed from the waste down at the age of 35, a person who was born a quadriplegic but with full mental capabilities, a person who was born a paraplegic and has severe cerebral palsy, and a 90-year old with severe arthritis, all whom may be wheelchair-bound, have different needs. Furthermore, these needs can vary from location, as culture largely affects what people do, what they enjoy, how they interact, where they go, how they live, etc.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Forget it. You're 100% right. Disability is the same worldwide.

I'm not sure why you keep wanting to turn a PHYSICAL thing into a CULTURAL one. If I am bound to a wheelchair in the USA, and travel to France, are my needs no longer the same? Are people in wheelchairs needs different in Japan from the USA? I have yet to see any evidence on that and all you do is talk in rather vague terms. I'm keeping an open mind here, but without some sort of evidence or examples, you're not going to convince me that disabled people are different and don't need some base level of standards and guidelines to make their life easier.

Originally Posted by eric/

Me not providing any doesn't mean there aren't any, and it doesn't mean that setting a precedent could cause problems.

This is really funny...it seems like the exact same argument is playing out on TV as well. I think it was Thursday's show that had a guy on CNN's AC360 who was being grilled by Anderson Cooper and he couldn't provide any examples of this being a problem either. And guess what he said next...same thing as you...but but but...it could happen. Wow. If mankind had had that attitude about everything, we would have never left the caves we were living in. Such fear. With absolutely no basis. All made up.

It's always entertaining to me when I, a gentlemen that voted for Barack Obama in the past two elections, generally votes Democrat, and hates religion, is lumped in with people like Rick Santorum in some sort of shrill debate tactic.

It's not a shrill debate tactic, it happens to be merely a fact. Were you or were you not originally in agreement with Rick Santorum that this should not be approved? If you don't want to be lumped in with him, then don't agree with him on things. Simple.

Well, I'm not being outlandish, so not sure who this is really meant for.

See above. If you are going to side with someone outlandish, then I am going to consider you to be outlandish in your thinking as well.

Originally Posted by NickZac

A person who was wounded in combat and paralyzed from the waste down at the age of 35, a person who was born a quadriplegic but with full mental capabilities, a person who was born a paraplegic and has severe cerebral palsy, and a 90-year old with severe arthritis, all whom may be wheelchair-bound, have different needs. Furthermore, these needs can vary from location, as culture largely affects what people do, what they enjoy, how they interact, where they go, how they live, etc.

Can you explain how all those different types of disabled people have different needs from location to location though? And can you explain how a disabled person traveling from one country to another could have his needs met without some sort of standards?

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

I'm not sure why you keep wanting to turn a PHYSICAL thing into a CULTURAL one. If I am bound to a wheelchair in the USA, and travel to France, are my needs no longer the same? Are people in wheelchairs needs different in Japan from the USA? I have yet to see any evidence on that and all you do is talk in rather vague terms. I'm keeping an open mind here, but without some sort of evidence or examples, you're not going to convince me that disabled people are different and don't need some base level of standards and guidelines to make their life easier.

Can you explain how all those different types of disabled people have different needs from location to location though? And can you explain how a disabled person traveling from one country to another could have his needs met without some sort of standards?

Again, disability is not that simple in a physical sense. That's like saying all (insert an ethnicity) people need ________ service. I would argue separating physical and cultural needs is not as easy as it sounds. The article discussed local cultures. My point is that disability varies by who is defining it. There are some areas where certain disabilities aren’t disabilities at all. Obviously, this entails certain disabilities that aren’t as extreme of partial or full paralysis, but that only further illustrates the variety within the concept of disability. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal...accno=EJ576614

A few specific examples from my own experience with wheelchairs
1) terrain affects what wheelchair accommodations are needed. They also affect wheelchair selection. Therefore, it can translate into how medical insurance reimburses and what wheelchair model they deem best. Wheelchairs are very expensive, not the same, and different needs determine different chairs. The best model wheelchair for someone living in location X may be the worst for location Y. So concluding on universal design standards or wheelchair reimbursement is difficult. Furthermore, planning universal design standards for accessibility can be difficult because of the variation in chair (and other related device) design.
2) buildings affect what accommodations are needed. Someone living in a city with tall buildings will need more education and training on managing in an area that is segmented by physical floors. Someone living in the country or suburbs, where 99% of the buildings are one floor does not necessarily need to learn this and life skills learning can be better directed. Education that involves navigating a city is usually very extensive. Life skills and/or basic accommodations need to be able to account for this, necessitating an understanding at the micro-level.
3) local job availability affects accommodations are needed. Disability accommodations are inherently linked with workforce training. Whether it is wheelchair usage or a learning disability, life skills training helps one manage with their disability. Cultural definitions define what these life skills are. Local economies define what these life skills are. Certain training in certain areas is useless.
4) local terrain and even local culture affects transportation needs. Someone in the heart of Paris is going to need different accommodations than someone in the middle of Colorado (again, see wheelchair selection).
5) public transportation models vary greatly, yet they are an inherent part of mobility for persons with disabilities in many areas. Do I need to give an example of this?
6) accommodations will vary by disability. The guy who was injured in combat will need different accommodations for living, working, etc. than say a person with severe cerebral palsy, who will need more intensive accommodations. Looking at disability in the physical sense only neglects the psychological side as well, which is very individualized.

So going back to my original comment that “1) the needs of people with disabilities do vary across not just country lines but state lines and even by individual locality, and 2) I don't think that I should be telling someone in a place that I have never been to, with cultural norms I do not know, how to live and what accommodations are needed for success.”

I am surprised you are looking at this in such a physical sense. In many ways, I think it is like trying to apply scientific management to government. You cannot separate contextual meaning, and I don’t believe you can pull a physical trait and then make a fair comparison because other information is overlooked. I'm not saying disability litigation is bad, and I'm not even saying national standards are a completely bad idea. However, I am saying that the US has not done a good job at disability policy. I want to see US lawmakers concentrate within the United States before applying it internationally…I have a serious issue with the current state of health care in the United States, and the current (lacking) level of litigation with spine. If the US is going to lead this, then they need to do a better job with disability policy at the domestic level. Otherwise, it’s going to be another ‘spineless’ outcome.


This is as far as I’m going with this. If you don’t feel I am making sense at this point, let’s agree to disagree.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by NickZac

So going back to my original comment that “1) the needs of people with disabilities do vary across not just country lines but state lines and even by individual locality

If you read the U.N. agreements you'll see that this point is understood and taken into account. These agreements are not a list of requirements for every country to follow in lockstep, they are instead broader initiatives intended to promote overall progress on the issue while acknowledging the various hurdles different countries may encounter.

Originally Posted by NickZac

2) I don't think that I should be telling someone in a place that I have never been to, with cultural norms I do not know, how to live and what accommodations are needed for success.”

"You" are not telling others "how to live". Countries are agreeing to goals they want to work towards. This is an international agreement, not a dictatorial demand.

You don't seem to understand (or wish to acknowledge) the difference between the two.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

If you read the U.N. agreements you'll see that this point is understood and taken into account. These agreements are not a list of requirements for every country to follow in lockstep, they are instead broader initiatives intended to promote overall progress on the issue while acknowledging the various hurdles different countries may encounter.


"You" are not telling others "how to live". Countries are agreeing to goals they want to work towards. This is an international agreement, not a dictatorial demand.

You don't seem to understand (or wish to acknowledge) the difference between the two.

Again, I want to see more domestic progress in the United States. If this is what you are talking about (http://www.un.org/disabilities/conve...tionfull.shtml) I've read it. It's great...like the ADA it is great in theory. I want to see the ADA enforced domestically, I want to see better logistics management domestically, and better performance measurements domestically. The US government does not dedicate nearly as many resources to this as one may think. With limited resources, I feel a bridge between theory and practice is where efforts should be concentrated. I also recall the US entering an international agreement through the UN that banned the use of torture...would you call that a gap between theory and practice?

I believe I read that the United States was leading the process...if I did not, I apologize for the second. I'm not sure how other countries do disability policy and support but I imagine (and hope) they are better than the US. However, the gap between theory and practice still remains as does the macro vs. micro. The bottom line is while I believe this is in good intention and may benefit some nations greatly, I personally think it will have marginal affect on the US and that the resources can be spent better elsewhere.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

it seems like the exact same argument is playing out on TV as well. I think it was Thursday's show that had a guy on CNN's AC360 who was being grilled by Anderson Cooper and he couldn't provide any examples of this being a problem either. And guess what he said next...same thing as you...but but but...it could happen.

Well, it could. So such treaties need to be analyzed and not blindly passed.

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

Wow. If mankind had had that attitude about everything, we would have never left the caves we were living in. Such fear. With absolutely no basis. All made up.

No, it's called being prepared, managing risk, and not taking unnecessary risk.

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

It's not a shrill debate tactic, it happens to be merely a fact
Were you or were you not originally in agreement with Rick Santorum that this should not be approved? If you don't want to be lumped in with him, then don't agree with him on things. Simple.

No it's pretty shrill. You're just hawking "you side with Rick Santorum ergo you're wrong". Which, honestly, is one of the worst arguments I've seen on this forum. Do you belive in feedom of speech? So does Rick Santorum. Guess you're in his camp. Do you believe that government should exist? Guess you're in Rick Santorum's camp.

Either way, the fact remains that just because you side with somebody who you fundamentally disagree with it doesn't mean that you agree with them on everything, nor does it mean their personal issues have anything to do with you.

.

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

See above. If you are going to side with someone outlandish, then I am going to consider you to be outlandish in your thinking as well.

Well that's your problem and bad assumption I guess. I don't really know how to correct this type of incorrect thinking, you'll just have to grow into that understanding with maturity.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Again, I want to see more domestic progress in the United States.

This is not a zero sum game.

Progress in other countries does not hinder or prevent progress from occurring in the United States.

Your focus on the U.S. in this case is odd, unnecessary and appears irrational.

[niuniu]

How's that Convention on the Rights of the Child doing. Ratified it yet, or you still hanging out with Somalia?

Not the first time the US has had issue adopting UN rights into national laws.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

This is not a zero sum game.

Progress in other countries does not hinder or prevent progress from occurring in the United States.

Your focus on the U.S. in this case is odd, unnecessary and appears irrational.

I'm sorry to hear you find it irrational since it doesn't match what you believe is right. I want that time and money spent internationally to be spent domestically enforcing the ADA so that persons with disabilities can be served social justice. I'm not sure where you are in terms of connection to the 'disabled community,' and I don't like to speculate about people online. You may very well be involved within the community so I am by no means implying you are or are not. I've dealt with disability my whole life. I've spent periods bedridden and in a wheelchair, I've been in court battles because organizations refused accommodation, I've been denied rights because of my disabilities, I was called a 'retard' by teachers and students alike for most of my elementary school years, I have a brother with cerebral palsy who has had to fight for every bit of the (small) accommodation he gets, and I have worked for a decade and a half with a local government organizations that serves persons with disabilities, especially low-income children and adolescents. Lee said it best in that you have to live it to truly understand it, and I believe that 100%. I've seen it first hand. I've experienced it first hand. I work with it every day. How many people on this forum discuss the discrimination that people with disabilities face? I see threads on discrimination quite often, but they are almost never about disability. The injustices that people with disabilities face are beyond even the ugliest words in our language. Maybe you have seen what I've seen, and maybe you haven't. Perhaps the situation is more equitable on your side of the country.

Answer me this and then I am done...if the ADA is currently not being enforced, do you believe that this international agreement will benefit Americans with disabilities more so than a revamping of the ADA's legal backing?

----------

Originally Posted by niuniu

How's that Convention on the Rights of the Child doing. Ratified it yet, or you still hanging out with Somalia?

Not the first time the US has had issue adopting UN rights into national laws.

Even the ones the US has adopted have not always been followed... and that undermines my confidence.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by niuniu

How's that Convention on the Rights of the Child doing. Ratified it yet, or you still hanging out with Somalia?

Not the first time the US has had issue adopting UN rights into national laws.

It's only before birth that Americans care about children .

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

It's only before birth that Americans care about children .

Well, abortion is legal here.

how about in the UK?

[bradl]

Originally Posted by NickZac

I'm sorry to hear you find it irrational since it doesn't match what you believe is right. I want that time and money spent internationally to be spent domestically enforcing the ADA so that persons with disabilities can be served social justice. I'm not sure where you are in terms of connection to the 'disabled community,' and I don't like to speculate about people online. You may very well be involved within the community so I am by no means implying you are or are not. I've dealt with disability my whole life. I've spent periods bedridden and in a wheelchair, I've been in court battles because organizations refused accommodation, I've been denied rights because of my disabilities, I was called a 'retard' by teachers and students alike for most of my elementary school years, I have a brother with cerebral palsy who has had to fight for every bit of the (small) accommodation he gets, and I have worked for a decade and a half with a local government organizations that serves persons with disabilities, especially low-income children and adolescents. Lee said it best in that you have to live it to truly understand it, and I believe that 100%. I've seen it first hand. I've experienced it first hand. I work with it every day. How many people on this forum discuss the discrimination that people with disabilities face? I see threads on discrimination quite often, but they are almost never about disability. The injustices that people with disabilities face are beyond even the ugliest words in our language. Maybe you have seen what I've seen, and maybe you haven't. Perhaps the situation is more equitable on your side of the country.

I have to agree with this; unless you live with it, you can't truly understand it. I thought I had when I occasionally crossed paths with a blind person in high school. Now that I live and have a family with one, it is a completely different experience. Not only does it open your eyes into how well they deal with it in the face of those who are not disabled, but it makes you take stock in yourself to see who much you take for granted. Very humbling.

Answer me this and then I am done...if the ADA is currently not being enforced, do you believe that this international agreement will benefit Americans with disabilities more so than a revamping of the ADA's legal backing?

If I may answer this with another question just to offer the explanation.. How do others know that the ADA is not being enforced? A lot of the provisions taken to make a place ADA compliant aren't really recognizable. Yes, you may see disabled parking spots and signs on the door, but do people know about aisle width? door width? the allowances for service animals? How about service? at restaurants? gas stations? any type of store? It isn't that you can just easily point and say "Hey, you're not ADA compliant!", but a lot of changes were already made to become ADA compliant that it is enforced by default; you don't have law enforcement actively searching out and making sure that places are ADA compliant, as the inspections and enforcement are done routinely.

BL.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by bradl

I have to agree with this; unless you live with it, you can't truly understand it. I thought I had when I occasionally crossed paths with a blind person in high school. Now that I live and have a family with one, it is a completely different experience. Not only does it open your eyes into how well they deal with it in the face of those who are not disabled, but it makes you take stock in yourself to see who much you take for granted. Very humbling.

If I may answer this with another question just to offer the explanation.. How do others know that the ADA is not being enforced? A lot of the provisions taken to make a place ADA compliant aren't really recognizable. Yes, you may see disabled parking spots and signs on the door, but do people know about aisle width? door width? the allowances for service animals? How about service? at restaurants? gas stations? any type of store? It isn't that you can just easily point and say "Hey, you're not ADA compliant!", but a lot of changes were already made to become ADA compliant that it is enforced by default; you don't have law enforcement actively searching out and making sure that places are ADA compliant, as the inspections and enforcement are done routinely.

BL.

I like the point you make. Ensuring compliance is a difficult task, but my primary complaints which I see continuous struggles with are...

-Employment discrimination is (much like racism) institutional and done so purposely to make it harder to detect and almost always wind up in a long, drawn out court case. This intentional design, with a long and drawn out court case in itself discourages people from fighting due to costs, public perception, etc.

-As you noted, the ADA building compliance has not been strictly enforced. I agree it is complicated.

-The ADA prohibits discrimination in schools, but it does not mandate the individual requirements many students need and much of the wording is ambiguous. Even with an IEP or 504, parents consistently wind up at school board hearings to fight for things such as one-on-one instruction, an extended day program, instructional assistants, etc...and they don't always get them. And so its backing to enable these is somewhat weak and it is why I say the ADA needs more spine. The mandate that prohibits discrimination in schools is really more for the purpose of public places and physical accessibility. While physical accessibility is important, we both know from personal experience that the infrastructure required for increasing quality of life is far more than just that. Had my parents not have raised hell to get me necessary accommodations, it is almost certain that I would not be typing this. From my experience, most parents whom have children with disabilities have gone through some really ugly fights. I think this is the single biggest issue given the potential good special education has to improve one's independence and quality of life.


But those are my core complaints on the ADA. I think it is a step in the right direction, but enforcement needs to increase. Furthermore, the US needs to have internal change in which we create a society that helps people succeed, not fail...and a major part of that is standardized and affordable medical care that includes comprehensive services for related disabilities. So perhaps I am overly pessimistic about the UN agreement.

[bradl]

Random thought here..

What boggles me is that all that this 'treaty' would provide are provisions defined as per terms of the treaty. That would mean that it would be up to the individual countries who sign the treaty on how they are to implement those provisions, ensuring each country's sovereignty in the laws they pass to comply with the treaty provisions.

So there you have it: a treaty every country could agree upon, leaving each country with how they want to implement it, ensuring sovereignty. In our case, we wouldn't have to do anything because the ADA and ACAA meet those provisions.

So this wouldn't have meant any further work on our end, so it is mind-boggling as to why the Reds would object to it.

BL.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by bradl

So there you have it: a treaty every country could agree upon, leaving each country with how they want to implement it, ensuring sovereignty. In our case, we wouldn't have to do anything because the ADA and ACAA meet those provisions.

So this wouldn't have meant any further work on our end, so it is mind-boggling as to why the Reds would object to it.

BL.

Well if they aren't required to implement standards, what is the point?

And if we wouldn't have to change anything.... what's the point in the US needing to sign it?

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by bradl

Random thought here..

What boggles me is that all that this 'treaty' would provide are provisions defined as per terms of the treaty. That would mean that it would be up to the individual countries who sign the treaty on how they are to implement those provisions, ensuring each country's sovereignty in the laws they pass to comply with the treaty provisions.

So there you have it: a treaty every country could agree upon, leaving each country with how they want to implement it, ensuring sovereignty. In our case, we wouldn't have to do anything because the ADA and ACAA meet those provisions.

So this wouldn't have meant any further work on our end, so it is mind-boggling as to why the Reds would object to it.

BL.

That's why I am skeptical, but as you said it seems little harm could come from it. My skepticism is on how much help it would serve.

They almost surely objected out of spite...that seems to be the new cool in politics

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by NickZac

That's why I am skeptical, but as you said it seems little harm could come from it. My skepticism is on how much help it would serve.

Excerpted from the Status of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto ...

Harmonization of domestic legislation, policies and monitoring the implementation

16. Several States parties to the Convention reported progress in the harmonization of domestic legislation in compliance with the Convention:

(a) Brazil established its National Human Rights Office under the Office of the President to monitor the implementation of the Convention;

(b) Burkina Faso adopted a law on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities;

(c) Canada noted that all jurisdictions have strong equality and nondiscrimination protection for persons with disabilities, which is embodied in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in federal, provincial and territorial human rights legislation;

(d) Mexico adopted a general law in May 2011 on the social inclusion of persons with disabilities, which reaffirmed the human rights of persons with disabilities in all aspects of life and development. Mexico has also launched a national mechanism, with budget allocations, for implementing and monitoring national policies and action plans for the inclusion of persons with disabilities;

(e) Paraguay adopted a law requiring public institutions to reserve at least 5*per*cent of staff positions for persons with disabilities. Paraguay is also currently working on the creation of a national secretariat for the human rights of persons with disabilities;

(f) Spain approved a regulation regarding basic conditions for the participation of persons with disabilities in political and electoral processes;

(g) Uruguay adopted a law for the comprehensive protection of persons with disabilities. Under its terms, an honorary national commission on disability will be established for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of national policies relating to persons with disabilities. Uruguay has also established a consultative council on disability, which will provide a mechanism ensuring that organizations of persons with disabilities may take part in relevant processes.

National policies for implementation of the Convention

17. Several States reported on progress in developing and strengthening both national policy frameworks for the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities as well as practices for implementing and monitoring the Convention:

(a) Brazil launched a national plan for the rights of persons with disabilities, “Living without limits”, in November 2011. The plan is organized around four themes: education, health, social inclusion and accessibility;

(b) The Cook Islands National Disability Council was established in partnership with the Ministry of Internal Affairs to improve the coordination of services for persons with disabilities. The Government specifically addressed the issues faced by women and girls with disabilities in its National Gender Policy 2011. The workplan of the Cook Islands National Council of Women also considers the inclusion of women with disabilities in its organizational activities;

(c) The Ministry of Labour and Social Policies of Italy, in cooperation with the National Statistics Institute, launched a website to make data on persons with disabilities available to the general public. In December 2011, the General Directorate for Social Inclusion and Social Policies of the Ministry signed an agreement with the National Statistics Institute in compliance with article 31 of the Convention;

(d) Indonesia is currently implementing its national plan of action on persons with disabilities 2004-2013, which is part of its commitment to realize the Biwako Millennium Framework for Action Towards an Inclusive, Barrier-Free and Rights-Based Society for Persons with Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific;

(e) Latvia reported that it is preparing a strategic document, “Basic principles of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for 2013-2019”, in close collaboration with organizations of persons with disabilities;

(f) Mexico launched a national programme in April 2012 outlining a series of strategies to prevent and eliminate discrimination. The programme will promote the progressive removal of barriers preventing persons with disabilities from accessing Federal buildings, and will seek to foster a culture of respect for the human rights of persons with disabilities. Mexico has also launched guidelines for accessible websites, particularly directed at Federal employees;

(g) Mozambique is currently developing its second national action plan for disability 2012-2019, which is informed by various national and international instruments and inputs from all stakeholders, including organizations of persons with disabilities, faith-based organizations and the private sector. A range of awareness-raising campaigns, vocational and education training programmes have also been implemented;

(h) Qatar launched its national development strategy (2011-2016), which included social protection for persons with disabilities. The national population policy, introduced in 2010, focused on the empowerment of persons with disabilities through anti-discrimination measures and equal-employment opportunities. Qatar also conducted several information and communications technology initiatives to promote both the inclusion of persons with disabilities and the implementation of the Convention;

(i) The Republic of Korea included women with disabilities in its five-year policy development plan for persons with disabilities and in its basic plan for women’s policy. It also introduced a disability pension system, improved its disability registration and assessment system, expanded housing services for persons with disabilities and took additional measures for persons with disabilities relating to economic opportunities, the right to education and culture and web accessibility;

(j) Spain adopted a strategy (2012-2020) to advance universal accessibility. A principal objective of the strategy is to ensure access by persons with disabilities to transport, information technologies, communication systems and other services, on an equal basis with the general population;

(k) Togo ratified the Convention in March 2011. The Government of Togo has adopted a strategy on poverty reduction that takes into account the needs of persons with disabilities in relation to health, employment and education. It has also adopted a plan on education that includes accessibility measures for children with disabilities;

(l) Uruguay is currently developing a national plan on equalization of opportunities and rights for persons with disabilities that will facilitate access to health, education, work and housing for persons with disabilities.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=36

Progress is progress.

There is an old saying that I believe applies here, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

[bradl]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well if they aren't required to implement standards, what is the point?

They would be required to implement the provisions. It would be up to them on HOW they are going to implement the provisions, and what laws they will pass to codify it. That's the the difference.

And if we wouldn't have to change anything.... what's the point in the US needing to sign it?

We wouldn't have to change anything because we already have the laws codifying those provisions. So we basically have to do nothing. But by signing it, we show solidarity with the rest of the world on this issue. While we don't have to do anything, that symbol of all being together on the same page on this would be huge.

Oh.. we could perhaps assist other countries on how to write and implement such laws? Role model, and all..

BL.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Excerpted from the Status of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto ...



Progress is progress.

There is an old saying that I believe applies here, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

I'll try to keep a more positive attitude, but what you have quoted, as good as it sounds, doesn't guarantee progress (at least in the US). But I'll hope for the best.

[AhmedFaisal]

To me it comes down to a "do as I say, don't do as I do" type situation. The US positions itself as a stalwart from human rights, democracy etc. etc. and uses economic, political and military pressure to impose it's will on other countries.
In this case, it's a matter of symbolism. In a nutshell after listening, reading and speaking with conservative politicos is more or less that "we have something similar, don't need it and even if it's good we don't want to be bound to a non US body in case we decide to change our mind or just in principle, but others should definitely sign it."
Conservatives tend to forget that leading by example is much more effective.
It's even more blatant when it comes to treaties such as the non-proliferation treaty. We impose sanctions on Iran on the assumption that they are violating the treaty they signed and developing a nuclear weapon because they refuse to submit to inspections by the IAEO. Well, neither do the US, China, Russia, France or the UK. To just say, "hey we are the good guys, should be able to ignore the treaty but everybody else can't." That doesn't make sense to me.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by bradl

They would be required to implement the provisions. It would be up to them on HOW they are going to implement the provisions, and what laws they will pass to codify it. That's the the difference.

But the problem with the "how" is that it can be twisted into meaningless. They could say "well, we're going to do it this way, in 50 years or when we save up enough money" or something ridiculous.

Originally Posted by bradl

We wouldn't have to change anything because we already have the laws codifying those provisions. So we basically have to do nothing. But by signing it, we show solidarity with the rest of the world on this issue. While we don't have to do anything, that symbol of all being together on the same page on this would be huge.

Could we not sign it, but support it?

Originally Posted by bradl

Oh.. we could perhaps assist other countries on how to write and implement such laws? Role model, and all..

BL.

Sounds like the best idea to me.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by NickZac

I am surprised you are looking at this in such a physical sense.

Because it is referred to as a physical disability, and not "cultural disability". That being said, I understand a bit more of where you are coming from but you really haven't addressed where I am coming from which is a much more general standard then specific wheelchair models. Do not all wheelchairs need a ramp? That's the kind of stuff I am talking about. The stuff that IS universal and DOES translate across borders. The things you would expect a base level of were you to travel to another state or country. What would those things be? Why can we not have a standard on those? That is what I am talking about. I have yet to hear you address someone that travels for instance and their expectations between one place and another or one country or another.

Originally Posted by eric/

Well, it could. So such treaties need to be analyzed and not blindly passed.

No, it's called being prepared, managing risk, and not taking unnecessary risk.

Actually, in this case, it's called being paranoid. When you have real world history of things not being an issue, and then make the claim that a particular new one could be, (even though all those ones in the past were not), it is irrational.

No it's pretty shrill. You're just hawking "you side with Rick Santorum ergo you're wrong". Which, honestly, is one of the worst arguments I've seen on this forum. Do you belive in feedom of speech? So does Rick Santorum. Guess you're in his camp. Do you believe that government should exist? Guess you're in Rick Santorum's camp.

Rick Santorum was specifically shooting this treaty down for the exact same irrational reasons you are. Therefore, on that issue, you are in agreement with him and drawing the comparison is valid. Again, not a shrill debate thing, merely a fact.

Either way, the fact remains that just because you side with somebody who you fundamentally disagree with it doesn't mean that you agree with them on everything

Pretty sure I never said that you agree with Rick Santorum on everything since I haven't deviated from the specific subject at hand. That's really a stretch to imply.

Well that's your problem and bad assumption I guess. I don't really know how to correct this type of incorrect thinking, you'll just have to grow into that understanding with maturity.

Nice personal insult. I would imagine that I am both older in years and maturity, but that's beside the point and way way way off topic.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by eric/

But the problem with the "how" is that it can be twisted into meaningless. They could say "well, we're going to do it this way, in 50 years or when we save up enough money" or something ridiculous.

The "how" wouldn't be twisted, because they would have the terms that they would have to abide by. However, you do make a good point as to the "when" question. I don't know if that was provisioned in the treaty.

Could we not sign it, but support it?

And puts us with the ability to be above the treaty which would become the law of the land for everyone else. That makes no sense, especially if we have laws stating that no-one is above the law, not even the POTUS.

Sounds like the best idea to me.

Along with being in the treaty and living by and being an example of the treaty, yes. Not outside of the treaty, but with it and an example of how to implement it, yes.

BL.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

Because it is referred to as a physical disability, and not "cultural disability". That being said, I understand a bit more of where you are coming from but you really haven't addressed where I am coming from which is a much more general standard then specific wheelchair models. Do not all wheelchairs need a ramp? That's the kind of stuff I am talking about. The stuff that IS universal and DOES translate across borders. The things you would expect a base level of were you to travel to another state or country. What would those things be? Why can we not have a standard on those? That is what I am talking about. I have yet to hear you address someone that travels for instance and their expectations between one place and another or one country or another.

I see what you are saying...and multiple countries becoming more universally accessible is not a bad thing at all and yes, a ramp in China is still a ramp in England, etc. But there has to be more than just a ramp. There needs to be an infrastructure behind that ramp. And as of right now, the US is not doing this very well and that is a part of my core concern because I am skeptical that even if the US did enter the agreement that it would have a notable impact on the quality of life for persons with disabilities. As it stands today, most people with disabilities cannot qualify for individual health insurance...stuff like that I see as highest priority and needing change from the inside above almost everything else.