GOP blocks disability treaty

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Dec 5, 2012.

  1. mcrain, Dec 5, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2012

    mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    From what I have heard on the POTUS channel, there was a concerted effort to demonstrate that the treaty did not interfere with US sovereign power at all. The key group that opposed this can be gleaned from the last two paragraphs.

    The right-wing, usually fundmentalist Christian, home-schoolers did not want to have any requirements on how they take care of or educate their disabled children, and basically threatened the GOP lawmakers that any support for this bill would risk a tea party primary challenge. I haven't found much support for that claim, but it sounds valid.

    Reagan was disabled. Dole was disabled. McCain was wounded and probably qualified for disability status. They couldn't get 5 more Republicans to vote for this?

    (edit) This is the closest thing I was able to find supporting the home-school backlash against this treaty. Link (I'm also not looking very hard).
     
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #2
    I personally don't want an international commitee deciding on domestic issues. This could be a treaty with good intentions, but we can decide what is best for our own people and should pass a bill if deemed necessary.
     
  3. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    But this treaty was modeled after OUR laws, and our ratification encourages other countries to also treat disabled people properly. There is NO reason not to ratify a treaty like this.

    This is an embarrassment for the GOP. They should be ashamed.
     
  4. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #4
    We did, it's called the Americans with Disabilities Act, on which the UN treaty is based on. All this does is bring other countries up to our standards, a move which happens to give US companies that must follow the ADA a more even-playing field internationally.

    The law doesn't "decide on domestic issues" rather it's an agreement to expand the rights of the disabled in other countries.


    ...


    It's been fascinating to see the wingnut parade make an otherwise procedural bill into a clarion call because the UN (made of "strangers from foreign countries...[like] ...China, India, or even Afghanistan) wants to the rest of the world to follow US law.
     
  5. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #5
    There's no reason to ratify it, if we already have sufficient legislation.
     
  6. noisycats macrumors 6502a

    noisycats

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Location:
    The 'ham. Alabama.
    #6
    Don't you see?

    It's perfectly OK for us to police the world, but heaven forbid we act as 'equals' on the world stage.
     
  7. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #7
    That's not how international law works.
     
  8. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #8
    Why do we need a new international law to tell us to do what we already do sufficiently?
     
  9. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #9
    Maybe we just need to ratify it so that its in effect for foreign companies that operate here and elsewhere. Maybe it doesn't hurt us, so why would the GOP oppose it?
     
  10. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #10
    It's already in effect for foreign companies that operate here. They have to abide by our regulations and rules.

    If other countries want to do it, why don't they just implement the legislation? Why do we need to have a UN treaty here in the US?
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #11
    Like the Budapest Convention, we'd be signing this into law in order to encourage other countries to do the same thing and follow our structures to synchronize international law.

    It's become clear of late, with the failure of the US to sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child (along with Somalia!), that the wingnut crowd can be ginned up at the mere mention of the UN.

    We'll sign arms treaties and cybercrime treaties (which arguably dented our rights more than either the CROC or the disability treaty ever would) and the wingnut crowd takes a nap. But, limit the ability to sell children into slavery or deny disability care and all of the sudden they care.
     
  12. mcrain, Dec 5, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2012

    mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #12
    We have tons of UN treaties that we have ratified. Seriouisly, what part of a treaty is so scary for right-wingers? What part of having the UN involved in something is so terrifying?

    This is good for US companies who have to abide by our laws. It gives them a more fair and even playing field. This doesn't take away us sovereignity at all, and for gods sake, it helps disabled people.
     
  13. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #13
    how is this any different than just having the legislation we already have? We don't need the UN to approve what we do, as they already do if they are modeling the law off the US law, so why can't countries just look at the US and do the same?

    Why should international law be synchronized?

    The fact that another country votes along with the US doesn't mean anything. It certainly doesn't corrupt the legitimacy of any vote.

    And what were the problems with the Rights of Child treaty? I bet there is more here than meets the eye.

    I don't think those treaties are necessary either.

    ----------

    We already have the law, what benefit do we gain from ratifying it?

    Why should we subject ourselves to international law, especially if that law is based off what we already practice?

    How?
    How does the law change to help disabled people more?
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #14
    Essentially, you're arguing against the UN treaty system.

    It makes enforcement of some of these laws, specifically trade laws, possible. Without an agreed upon treaty, you end up with a mishmash of agreements and memos of understanding that don't have the force necessary to pursue a case under international law.

    It's the company you keep. Our reasons could be different (Somalia wants the right to sell children into sex slavery, we just think the UN is scary), but the result is the same. International court cases against child sex slavery cannot build cases that involve US or Somalia.

    Conservatives believed, wrongly, that the UN treaty would give the UN the force to take their children.

    To encourage others to sign it and give it the legal weight it needs.


    Go read the treaty. I'm not carrying your water.

    It's clear from your posts that you either don't understand or don't believe in the UN treaty system. This is a growing sentiment in the United States (the Birchers finally found a purchase apparently) and it will increasingly marginalize the US role in the UN and our ability to pursue treaties that operate in our best interests. It allows other countries to easily opt-out and that will hurt us.
     
  15. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #15
    No.





    No it's not. You can't control how other countries vote.
    The US doesn't need (nor want) international court for such cases.


    Of course the conservatives or want to hurt old people and children believed that. :rolleyes:


    Why should that be a priority for the US, if it doesn't make a difference in the US if we sign it or not?

    So are you saying international law requires the US to be legitimate?



    If you can't provide specifics, I'll assume there are none.

    It's clear you misunderstand my posts, then.

    Why? If we don't get our way in the UN, we do it anyway.

    Without US intervention, countries can easily opt out anyway.
     
  16. ctdonath macrumors 65816

    ctdonath

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    #16
    That's not how sovereignty works.

    We can, and do, handle the issue just fine without submitting to outside control.
    The issue had nothing to do with international relations; it's a purely domestic concern. Other countries have the same concern...doesn't mean we have to compel each other to address it the same way.
     
  17. ctdonath macrumors 65816

    ctdonath

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    #17
    Why would a country which likes its abusive conditions want to agree to anti-abuse legislation just because another country they don't like agreed to it?

    Funny how you advocate compulsion to respectful behavior, yet are quick to insult your reasonable opponents.

    How about some of us sign an agreement to not insult our political opposition, in order to encourage Mr. Hulugu to do the same thing and follow our standards of respectful discourse? Oh, you say he won't because he likes being rude - but we'll still be bound to the agreement anyway?
     
  18. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #18
    Of course not, but if all your allies have signed it and a belligerent war-torn country has not, you should question why that's so.

    You're wrong.

    I never said that. Conservatives who fought against this treaty are wrong and they could hurt children (and apparently old people), but they didn't do so because they "want to hurt old people and children."


    Then explain your thinking.
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    Because it raises the standard of living for those with disabilities around the world. Thats why.

    There is literally no downside to this, just pure insane obstructionism.

    THIS behavior is why the world has a love/hate relationship with us. We are the ultimate in hypocrisy.
     
  20. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #20
    International diplomacy has more to do with creating the world we want to live in than does sabre rattling:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords

     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #21
    Wow. Way to boil down international relations to the kindergarten level.
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #22
    The people who fought against this treaty because they believe that the UN is going to force their disabled children out of homeschooling don't understand the law and are reacting out of an atavistic fear of "strangers" from foreign countries. They're wingnuts.

    If you are making an argument that state sovereignty is more important than the UN treaty system (regardless of its benefits or drawbacks) you are not a wingnut.

    I thought the implication was clear.
     
  23. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #23
    But why do we need to have a treaty in the US, when we already practice this?

    The downside would be unnecessary legislation, and increased UN oversight of the US.
     
  24. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #24
    You can question it, but it doesn't signify anything.


    No you're wrong.


    So what do Conservatives believe then?


    What has confused you? I'll happily explain.
     
  25. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #25
    So, we take the Americans With Disabilities Act, and codify it as a treaty, keeping in mind that the Americans With Disabilities Act has been changed and amended during the years as necessary. Do we assume it is now perfect? Or do we acknowledge that it will likely need future changes but simply assume all international treaties are so very easily amended by all interested parties in the future?

    Or is that just a "wingnut" question to ask?
     

Share This Page