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.
