[GA - Pulled] Supporting People With Disabilities

Status
Not open for further replies.

Westinor

Registered
TNP Nation
Westinor
Discord
Westinor#2315
ga.jpg

Supporting People With Disabilities
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Free Las Pinas | Onsite Topic

The World Assembly,

Noting the importance of accessible infrastructure - particularly in the spheres of health, education, and communications - in allowing people with disabilities to effectively exercise their rights;

Concerned that, in addition to ableism, many people with disabilities regularly face discrimination and disadvantage on other grounds (such as race, sex, age, and - for most - low income); and

Recognising that - while legislation alone cannot serve to completely eradicate discrimination - an internationally recognized disability code to remedy the social disadvantages of people with disabilities and promote their equal participation in all spheres of life would be of at least some benefit in achieving that goal, hereby:
  1. Requires member states to:
    1. Amend or annul national laws, and condemn or criminalize norms and procedures, which empower discrimination on the grounds of disability;
    2. Ensure that all people with disabilities within their jurisdiction can have easy and affordable access to assistive technologies, housing programs, and mental health support services;
    3. Ensure, in law and in practice, that no qualified applicants and employees for any job are subjected to different terms and conditions, privileges, incentives, or allowances in their occupation due to being disabled;
    4. Guarantee, to all people with disabilities, the right to know whatever meticulous details pertaining to their disability that their health care provider does, and ensure that health care providers explain their patient's medical condition to the best of their ability;
    5. Establish an adequate system of special education for those with visual or hearing impairments or those who have intellectual disabilities; and
    6. Provide appropriate financial assistance to all economically-marginalized students with disabilities who genuinely seek to pursue tertiary education;
  2. Encourages member states to:
    1. Promote universal social awareness and acceptance of people with disabilities across the population; and
    2. Utilize and conduct research to allow products and facilities to be used by anyone without the need for significant reworks and modifications;
  3. Affirms that a person with a disability is one who has been declared so and whose disabilities have been determined by a health care provider.
Co-authored by Tinhampton
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]8[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]
 
Last edited:
Against, since there are several concerns/uncertainties I have regarding this proposal. I am aware of the optics of opposing this, and I am willing to change my vote should someone provide a convincing counterargument.

Amend or annul national laws, and condemn or criminalize norms and procedures, which empower discrimination on the grounds of disability;
How is this substantially different from what's mandated in The Charter of Civil Rights with regards to disability-based discrimination, or indeed discrimination in general?

Ensure that all people with disabilities within their jurisdiction can have easy and affordable access to assistive technologies, housing programs, and mental health support services;
So, this proposal provides a blanket definition of a person with disabilities as "one who has been declared so and whose disabilities have been determined by a health care provider." This clause mandates that all people with disabilities, apparently applying to any person with any disability, must have "easy and affordable access to assistive technologies, housing programs, and mental health support services." The proposal specifically says "all people with disabilities." Nowhere is there a qualifier that these assistive technologies, etc. must be relevant to their disability. Any person with any disability as stated by any healthcare provider (declared so by whom? Can the healthcare provider be a family member who happens to be a physician of some sort?) is eligible to receive open access to any assistive technology, any housing program, or any mental health support service. This is problematic, and this is an incredibly sweeping declaration for a proposal to be making. Are there extant resolutions providing similarly broad access to housing programs and mental health services for non-disabled people? If not, these alone deserve separate legislation. If so, then this clause is redundant.

Ensure, in law and in practice, that no qualified applicants and employees for any job are subjected to different terms and conditions, privileges, incentives, or allowances in their occupation due to being disabled;
"Privileges" goes both ways. Do people with disabilities not have a right to reasonable accommodation in the workplace? This clause reads like it would ban reserved parking spaces, modified presentation of training materials, improved accessibility (such as priority elevator access), modified assignments, flexible work schedules due to disability, service animals, and more. Accommodation for disabled people in the workplace is yet another topic that really warrants its own resolution. This alone is enough for me to oppose this.

On a personal note, I find it quite amusing that a proposal outlawing different treatment in the workplace also grants sweeping benefits to anyone declared to have a disability as per any healthcare provider.

Guarantee, to all people with disabilities, the right to know whatever meticulous details pertaining to their disability that their health care provider does, and ensure that health care providers explain their patient's medical condition to the best of their ability;
Anything "pertaining" to their disability? Anything at all? Even sensitive or confidential information? What if I request to know precisely how severe every other similarly disabled patient in the hospital's disability is compared to my own?

Establish an adequate system of special education for those with visual or hearing impairments or those who have intellectual disabilities;
@Morover literally wrote an entire resolution just on education for the hearing-impaired. We also have A Promotion of Basic Education and other resolutions dealing with special education in general.

Provide appropriate financial assistance to all economically-marginalized students with disabilities who genuinely seek to pursue tertiary education;
Yet another sweeping mandate that (a) shouldn't be limited just to disabled students and (b) warrants its own resolution, not one line in this thing.

Affirms that a person with a disability is one who has been declared so and whose disabilities have been determined by a health care provider.
While I already touched on this, it bears repeating: this proposal doesn't define disability by what a person has, but by what any "health care provider" says they have. It doesn't have to be a certified professional in the field; just any old nurse will do. After they're found to be disabled in some way, they can go off and claim their vaguely defined financial assistance and any assistive device they may want. Meanwhile, actual disabled people are banned from receiving any workplace accommodation.

This strikes me as more of the same as "Rights of the employed"- a feel-good proposal that is either redundant with existing, more comprehensive legislation, or makes vague sweeping declarations that should be or have been covered by their own specific resolutions, with a bit of sloppy wording on top that creates unintended consequences and undermines the proposal's stated intentions. Strongly opposed for now.
 
Cretox, you're a major hypocrite. I clapped back with very similar arguments against Patient Travel Freedoms on the grounds they deserved their own resolution but they were ignored. So i'll just say it - write your own resolution then? Why deprive disabled people of housing benefits because you're annoyed that non-disabled people don't. Also, pertaining to their disability is quite clearly referring to the patient in a gender neutral pronoun.
 
Cretox, you're a major hypocrite. I clapped back with very similar arguments against Patient Travel Freedoms on the grounds they deserved their own resolution but they were ignored.
Are you referring to the "incarcerated populations" thing? Because firstly, that was added in response to criticism on the forum that the proposal should contain a provision on incarcerated people (who might not be able to travel of their own accord), secondly, it complemented a prior resolution, and thirdly, it was an ancillary clause to a proposal on medical tourism- as opposed to this proposal, which is nothing but sweeping mandates. Making this comparison is disingenuous.

So i'll just say it - write your own resolution then?
When a bunch of the mandates here are actively damaging and block future legislation, such as 1(3)?

Why deprive disabled people of housing benefits because you're annoyed that non-disabled people don't.
Because the clause is vague hand-waving and there's no reason to limit it to people with disabilities only, especially in a proposal whose first clause is to affirm an outlawing of disability-based discrimination.

Also, pertaining to their disability is quite clearly referring to the patient in a gender neutral pronoun.
That's... not what that means?

Speaking of hypocrisy, I'd like to point you to Repeal "GMO Int'l Trade Accord", a resolution you co-authored that cited "the lack of regulations of intellectual property" and "the exclusion of genetic modifications obtained through hybridisation or selective breeding" as reasons for repeal.
 
Are you referring to the "incarcerated populations" thing? Because firstly, that was added in response to criticism on the forum that the proposal should contain a provision on incarcerated people (who might not be able to travel of their own accord), secondly, it complemented a prior resolution, and thirdly, it was an ancillary clause to a proposal on medical tourism- as opposed to this proposal, which is nothing but sweeping mandates. Making this comparison is disingenuous.
That's not what I was referring to. i was referring to the entire premise that medical tourists get freedom of movement while everyone else doesn't.
When a bunch of the mandates here are actively damaging and block future legislation, such as 1(3)?
I'm talking about pretty much every other point you made, like the tertiary education one.
Because the clause is vague hand-waving and there's no reason to limit it to people with disabilities only, especially in a proposal whose first clause is to affirm an outlawing of disability-based discrimination.
I'll just reference Patient Travel Freedoms again - why medical tourists get freedom of movement? There's no reason to limit to them only, especially since you authored a broader one
That's... not what that means?
The Fat Controller laughed. "You are wrong."

That aside, it's a bad faith interpretation to say that it requires patients to know about other people.
Speaking of hypocrisy, I'd like to point you to Repeal "GMO Int'l Trade Accord", a resolution you co-authored that cited "the lack of regulations of intellectual property" and "the exclusion of genetic modifications obtained through hybridisation or selective breeding" as reasons for repeal.
Uh huh. Those are reasons for repeal because it gives corporations or selective breeders advantages and benefits, while the disabled one gives disabled people advantages, and I think they're different scenarios
 
I'll just reference Patient Travel Freedoms again - why medical tourists get freedom of movement? There's no reason to limit to them only, especially since you authored a broader one
Did you actually read the "broader" one? All it does is generally permit people to leave, move within, and return to a member nation. Patient Travel Freedoms covers a subset of that in significantly more depth. This proposal would either block more specific legislation or be rendered (or has already been rendered) largely redundant by it.

The Fat Controller laughed. "You are wrong."
You said that "pertaining to their disability" refers to "the patient in a gender neutral pronoun." Do you mean "their" specifically?

That aside, it's a bad faith interpretation to say that it requires patients to know about other people.
Why? I'd say that knowing about other patients' disabilities definitely pertains to my own to some degree, and the proposal quite clearly allows me to know "whatever meticulous details" my doctor could provide.

I'm talking about pretty much every other point you made, like the tertiary education one.
Leaving aside the fact that the "different terms and conditions" clause alone is grounds for opposing (even repeal if it passes), we're not talking about a repeal here. We're talking about supporting or opposing an original proposal. Why support it if every mandate has already been covered, shouldn't be exclusive to disabled people, or warrants a separate resolution?
 
Did you actually read the "broader" one? All it does is generally permit people to leave, move within, and return to a member nation. Patient Travel Freedoms covers a subset of that in significantly more depth. This proposal would either block more specific legislation or be rendered (or has already been rendered) largely redundant by it.
More depth? Like what? The right to receive follow up care is pretty much codified already (as is seeking any care in your home nation at all).
You said that "pertaining to their disability" refers to "the patient in a gender neutral pronoun." Do you mean "their" specifically?
Yes.
Leaving aside the fact that the "different terms and conditions" clause alone is grounds for opposing (even repeal if it passes), we're not talking about a repeal here. We're talking about supporting or opposing an original proposal. Why support it if every mandate has already been covered, shouldn't be exclusive to disabled people, or warrants a separate resolution?
Affiriming previous rights is good and has precedent, just because it's exclusive to disabled people doesn't mean we should not give disabled people these benefits until we pass broader legislation, and of it warrants a separate resolution that's fair but most people will disagree with you.

Anyways, why are you suddenly chiming in with these objections now? During the entirety of its drafting and its period in the accelerator you did not once bring up any of these concerns. Don't give the 'I only realised these now' shtick, if we don't use the accelerator to help other people then we might as well scrap it.
 
More depth? Like what? The right to receive follow up care is pretty much codified already (as is seeking any care in your home nation at all).
There's a difference between "pretty much" and actually being standing law. If you believe my resolution is unnecessary or ineffective, you're welcome to try repealing it.

Very well. The clause still says "guarantee, to all people with disabilities, the right to know whatever meticulous details pertaining to their disability that their health care provider does, and ensure that health care providers explain their patient's medical condition to the best of their ability." The meaning is pretty clear here: health care providers are obligated to provide any relevant information to patients upon request, no matter the confidentiality of said information.

Affiriming previous rights is good and has precedent, just because it's exclusive to disabled people doesn't mean we should not give disabled people these benefits until we pass broader legislation, and of it warrants a separate resolution that's fair but most people will disagree with you.
Why does this apply here and not to Patient Travel, a more specific resolution with a clearer purpose?

Anyways, why are you suddenly chiming in with these objections now? During the entirety of its drafting and its period in the accelerator you did not once bring up any of these concerns. Don't give the 'I only realised these now' shtick, if we don't use the accelerator to help other people then we might as well scrap it.
Given that you're now attempting to move the goalposts, I'm going to assume that you see at least some logic in my opposition. However, you make a very valid point- it's certainly frustrating as an author to have problems pointed out at the last moment, as has happened to me multiple times, and I told the author as much privately. When I looked at this draft in the past, I actually saw nothing really wrong with it. While I was looking over it after submission, it took me some time to feel as though something was off about it. It took me longer still to be able to articulate my thoughts. I agree, in an ideal world no author should have to deal with this. However, this isn't the end of the world- proposals can be pulled and resubmitted, they can fail at vote and be resubmitted, and they can be repealed and replaced. I'm actually a bit surprised no one noticed this sooner; as you said, the proposal was in drafting for some time and there were few critical comments.
 
Why does this apply here and not to Patient Travel, a more specific resolution with a clearer purpose?
Because if you pass ‘give housing benefits for all’ resolution before ‘Rights of the Disabled etc’, you still require the disabled rights one as only housing benefits are provided and not assistive technologies. For patient travel freedoms, if you passed Mobility Rights first, you don’t need to pass Patient Travel Freedoms at all, really.

Also, while you are kind of right that it can’t be helped, you still waste everyone’s time and efforts by only taking an in depth look when it feels off. You should do that for all proposals, especially the ones our Ministry is supporting.
 
Also, while you are kind of right that it can’t be helped, you still waste everyone’s time and efforts by only taking an in depth look when it feels off.
Oh yes, absolutely. Still, problems in a proposal are no less valid regardless of timing.
 
For, you snooze you lose.
Seriously? Since when do we ignore valid problems with a proposal because it's been submitted? It's not as though submission is this big leap- I've pulled and fixed numerous proposals, as have many others. This won't go to vote for 4 days, and that's ample time to fix and resubmit without losing any voting time. Are we going to never vote against anything ever again, since all post-submission concerns are automatically invalid? This stance is ridiculous.

That said, I don't have a vested interest in this one way or another. If the voters decide that all post-submission problems are automatically invalid and we should support regardless, I won't fight that.
 
Seriously? Since when do we ignore valid problems with a proposal because it's been submitted? It's not as though submission is this big leap- I've pulled and fixed numerous proposals, as have many others. This won't go to vote for 4 days, and that's ample time to fix and resubmit without losing any voting time. Are we going to never vote against anything ever again, since all post-submission concerns are automatically invalid? This stance is ridiculous.

That said, I don't have a vested interest in this one way or another. If the voters decide that all post-submission problems are automatically invalid and we should support regardless, I won't fight that.
Given that it appears that there was ample time to raise, I think it is not unreasonable for those concerns to have been raised prior to submission. It is immensely problematic to not do so as it unnecessarily wastes the time of the author and potentially their resources as well. Furthermore, it looks bad on you as it looks as though you were not paying sufficient attention to the GA. Not only does it make you look bad but if the region adopts your position as well, that also reflects negatively on TNP.

The sole reason that I initially got involved in providing feedback in the SC is because I previously raised criticism of resolutions in TNP's SC threads and the authors were upset that this criticism was not provided ahead of time. I think it is important to take a stance against criticisms of resolutions being made after submission.
 
Given that it appears that there was ample time to raise, I think it is not unreasonable for those concerns to have been raised prior to submission. It is immensely problematic to not do so as it unnecessarily wastes the time of the author and potentially their resources as well. Furthermore, it looks bad on you as it looks as though you were not paying sufficient attention to the GA. Not only does it make you look bad but if the region adopts your position as well, that also reflects negatively on TNP.
I agree- it's most certainly frustrating to submit a proposal and only then learn of issues with it. I know this from personal experience, and I've always pulled and resubmitted when glaring issues were brought up- regardless of how many times it took. As much as it is our responsibility to make a good-faith effort to help new authors (which I attempted to do here as soon as I noticed a potential problem), it is also an author's responsibility to recognize problems and act accordingly. There's always room for improvement. There's always more we could be doing. However, the timing of criticism does not make said criticism any less valid. I'd say the problems I raised concerning this proposal are quite valid, considering you have opted to not contest their content.

What would you have us do? Support every proposal that's submitted because issues could've logically been noticed beforehand? Ignore all criticism that comes post-submission? Never vote against something again? There's no pressing need for this proposal, and it could easily be pulled and resubmitted with no or little voting time lost. One day won't make a difference. One week won't make a difference. Should this proposal pass, it would simply be repealed in short order, thereby wasting even more of the author's time and energy.
 
I agree- it's most certainly frustrating to submit a proposal and only then learn of issues with it. I know this from personal experience, and I've always pulled and resubmitted when glaring issues were brought up- regardless of how many times it took. As much as it is our responsibility to make a good-faith effort to help new authors (which I attempted to do here as soon as I noticed a potential problem), it is also an author's responsibility to recognize problems and act accordingly. There's always room for improvement. There's always more we could be doing. However, the timing of criticism does not make said criticism any less valid. I'd say the problems I raised concerning this proposal are quite valid, considering you have opted to not contest their content.

What would you have us do? Support every proposal that's submitted because issues could've logically been noticed beforehand? Ignore all criticism that comes post-submission? Never vote against something again? There's no pressing need for this proposal, and it could easily be pulled and resubmitted with no or little voting time lost. One day won't make a difference. One week won't make a difference. Should this proposal pass, it would simply be repealed in short order, thereby wasting even more of the author's time and energy.
I haven’t contested your problems because I don’t know what your problems are with it as I haven’t cared to read the debate.

What I would have you do is engage with authors prior to submission. I’m not sure how a repeal takes up time of the original resolution’s author.
 
Against

Reason:

According to the definition of a worker in the resolution, people who engage in part-time work, freelancing, or contractual work on a weekly basis would need to be provided paid working leave. Given these are often short jobs that provide additional income source for many aside from a full-time job, employees don't need paid leave from 2 employers. Additionally, gig and part-time work act as some employment sources in times of reccession for the unemployed especially in countries with no unemployment insurance. Employers would eliminate these jobs as soon as possible with automation and workplace optimisations rather than bear paid working leave burdens. This would worsen the situation for workers.
Wrong thread :p
 
Note: I've moved @CD- betterThanFlash's post to the correct thread here.

I haven’t contested your problems because I don’t know what your problems are with it as I haven’t cared to read the debate.
Yet you still voted For, saying "you snooze you lose." This proposal would, among other things, ban workplace disabled accommodation. Making uninformed voting decisions is also a problem.

What I would have you do is engage with authors prior to submission. I’m not sure how a repeal takes up time of the original resolution’s author.
It's not your fault, but this attitude is the problem. The fact that pulling proposals frequently is a norm is a problem.
Absolutely, and this is something I and everyone else in the WA should work to mitigate. However, the proposal is in queue right now and we're voting on that version of it. Again, should we ignore problems because they were noticed late? This logic is inconsistent; by this logic, we shouldn't vote against anything.

Edit: A repeal waste's the author's efforts because it literally undoes their work and requires more work replacing the resolution.
 
Last edited:
Note: I've moved @CD- betterThanFlash's post to the correct thread here.


Yet you still voted For, saying "you snooze you lose." This proposal would, among other things, ban workplace disabled accommodation. Making uninformed voting decisions is also a problem.
Not uninformed. I just prioritize different aspects of a resolution differently than you do.



Absolutely, and this is something I and everyone else in the WA should work to mitigate. However, the proposal is in queue right now and we're voting on that version of it. Again, should we ignore problems because they were noticed late?
Yes.

This logic is inconsistent; by this logic, we shouldn't vote against anything.
Check the logic again as that is not the conclusion.

Edit: A repeal waste's the author's efforts because it literally undoes their work and requires more work replacing the resolution.
If the author wants to sink their own resolution, that's their decision. They can choose how much to be involved in the process after the resolution passes if at all.
 
If the author wants to sink their own resolution, that's their decision. They can choose how much to be involved in the process after the resolution passes if at all.
Again: why is it our responsibility to pass an obviously problematic proposal according to the author's "decision"? Why is it our responsibility to go against our allies, who see the same problems?

Edit:
Not uninformed. I just prioritize different aspects of a resolution differently than you do.
You literally said that you have no idea what the problems even are and "didn't care" enough to read any of it. So let me make it clear: this would ban any and all workplace disability accommodations along with other things. Or do you not "care" about that either?
 
Last edited:
Again: why is it our responsibility to pass an obviously problematic proposal according to the author's "decision"? Why is it our responsibility to go against our allies, who see the same problems?
Did I ever say it was our responsibility?

I'm not sure what the relevance our allies have in this particular case. Our vote isn't according to the our allies and it is quite concerning that you are insinuating—especially as the MoWAA—that (at least that's the impression I get).
You literally said that you have no idea what the problems even are and "didn't care" enough to read any of it. So let me make it clear: this would ban any and all workplace disability accommodations along with other things. Or do you not "care" about that either?
I think it was pretty clear when I said that I have different priorities than you in evaluating GA resolutions.
 
Did I ever say it was our responsibility?
You did:
(Unless I'm misunderstanding something, in which case please correct me).

I'm not sure what the relevance our allies have in this particular case. Our vote isn't according to the our allies and it is quite concerning that you are insinuating—especially as the MoWAA—that (at least that's the impression I get).
Your impression is incorrect, and I would share your concern if it weren't. Good proposals should pass. Heavily flawed ones should not. I recognize these flaws. Our allies recognize these flaws, and have stated as much in the proposal's NS thread. Why should we ignore these flaws and support this proposal anyway? You still have not answered this simple question.

I think it was pretty clear when I said that I have different priorities than you in evaluating GA resolutions.
I would have assumed those priorities to also include the proposal's content.
 
You did:

(Unless I'm misunderstanding something, in which case please correct me).
Wasn't stating that it was our responsibility to pass it.

Your impression is incorrect, and I would share your concern if it weren't. Good proposals should pass. Heavily flawed ones should not. I recognize these flaws. Our allies recognize these flaws, and have stated as much in the proposal's NS thread. Why should we ignore these flaws and support this proposal anyway? You still have not answered this simple question.
Good to know. I find the argument that "X supports/opposes this so we should too" to be inherently flawed. We should ignore these flaws due to the concerns being raised late. As I put it earlier, "you snooze, you lose". This then incentives those active in the GA to be pointing out issues with resolutions earlier instead of looking at resolutions later.

I would have assumed those priorities to also include the proposal's content.
The key part of priorities is that it is putting something in front of something else in terms of importance. :P
 
This is an awful proposal and if it gets re-admitted I vote against.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top