[GA - WITHDRAWN] Supporting People With Disabilities

Status
Not open for further replies.
Westinor

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:
  1. Defines “people with disabilities” to be those that have a physical or mental impairment which, within their own, their guardian’s, or their doctor’s jurisdiction, has a detrimental or consequential effect on their capabilities to execute day-to-day activities;
  2. Requires member states to:
    1. ensure that people with disabilities, within their jurisdiction, can conveniently access assistive technologies, housing programs, and mental health support services, relevant to their disability;
    2. provide, in law and in practice, that no qualified applicants for any job receive worse terms and conditions, incentives, or allowances in their employment due to being disabled;
    3. guarantee, to people with disabilities, the right to know details about their own medical condition, granted their doctor has the resources to;
  3. Encourages member states to:
    1. establish systems of special education for those with visual, hearing, or intellectual disabilities;
    2. uphold a positive and inclusive stance on disability, particularly in mainstream media, schools, and workplaces;
    3. utilise and conduct research to allow products and facilities to be used by anyone without the need for significant reworks and modifications; and
  4. Reaffirms the right to not be discriminated on the grounds of disability.
Co-authored by Tinhampton.
Click to expand...
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]6[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]
 
Last edited:
Against. Technically, it's fine. I can't fault it. It's definitely a substantial improvement over the previous iteration. I just can't get behind the premise; I don't see how this is beneficial or what it contributes over extant law. (4) is just an affirmation of extant law. (3) is just an encouragement. (2) doesn't really contribute anything concrete; that's why it needs to include wishy-washy language like "conveniently" and "the right to know details."

Just to clarify, the execution is fine and this isn't harmful as far as I can tell. It just follows a recent trend I'm seeing of "meh" proposals on stuff like water fluoridation and land reclamation that are technically fine, but just don't have much reason to exist in my opinion. I'm fine with supporting this, for the record.
 
Cretox State:
Against. Technically, it's fine. I can't fault it. It's definitely a substantial improvement over the previous iteration. I just can't get behind the premise; I don't see how this is beneficial or what it contributes over extant law. (4) is just an affirmation of extant law. (3) is just an encouragement. (2) doesn't really contribute anything concrete; that's why it needs to include wishy-washy language like "conveniently" and "the right to know details."

Just to clarify, the execution is fine and this isn't harmful as far as I can tell. It just follows a recent trend I'm seeing of "meh" proposals on stuff like water fluoridation and land reclamation that are technically fine, but just don't have much reason to exist in my opinion. I'm fine with supporting this, for the record.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right. It’s great, it has the right spirit, but...genuinely lacking in terms of teeth. Against.
 
Last edited:
Cretox State:
Against. Technically, it's fine. I can't fault it. It's definitely a substantial improvement over the previous iteration. I just can't get behind the premise; I don't see how this is beneficial or what it contributes over extant law. (4) is just an affirmation of extant law. (3) is just an encouragement. (2) doesn't really contribute anything concrete; that's why it needs to include wishy-washy language like "conveniently" and "the right to know details."

Just to clarify, the execution is fine and this isn't harmful as far as I can tell. It just follows a recent trend I'm seeing of "meh" proposals on stuff like water fluoridation and land reclamation that are technically fine, but just don't have much reason to exist in my opinion. I'm fine with supporting this, for the record.
Click to expand...
Seriously? No really, for real?

The author pulled to fix mistakes in the old one that you didn’t point out despite requesting the draft to be accelerated. Now that they’ve edited it to fit your concerns and specifically asked for your help, you just pull this nonsense (conveniently after submitting). This shit is probably why people don’t venture into the GA, because this toxic attitude is a serious turn off. The same for water fluoridation really, since you saw the thread and the proposal but didn’t comment on it, and opposed it for such anal reasons.

Anyways, I disagree with your points on (2). Conveniently means convenience. So, member nations will have to make access to technologies convenient. What’s so hard to understand?

Also, land reclamation isn’t a whole load of nothing. Pretty much all land reclamation has to go through a rigorous test to determine how bad the environmental fallout will be. It’s a narrow topic sure but it don’t diss it.

Very for (non-WA).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Honeydewistan:
Seriously? No really, for real?

The author pulled to fix mistakes in the old one that you didn’t point out despite requesting the draft to be accelerated. Now that they’ve edited it to fit your concerns and specifically asked for your help, you just pull this nonsense (conveniently after submitting). This shit is probably why people don’t venture into the GA, because this toxic attitude is a serious turn off. The same for water fluoridation really, since you saw the thread and the proposal but didn’t comment on it, and opposed it for such anal reasons.

Anyways, I disagree with your points on (2). Conveniently means convenience. So, member nations will have to make access to technologies convenient. What’s so hard to understand?

Also, land reclamation isn’t a whole load of nothing. Pretty much all land reclamation has to go through a rigorous test to determine how bad the environmental fallout will be. It’s a narrow topic sure but it don’t diss it.
Click to expand...
What? I specifically said that I think the execution is fine and a significant improvement. I also said I'm fine with supporting it. My supposed "toxic attitude" is simply me disagreeing with the premise. An anti-abortion proposal could be the best written thing ever; I'd still probably oppose it. My opposition to Water Fluoridation Act was also due to the premise. Again, I can't really fault the execution here. It's fine.

Honeydewistan:
Anyways, I disagree with your points on (2). Conveniently means convenience. So, member nations will have to make access to technologies convenient. What’s so hard to understand?
Click to expand...
"Anyways, I disagree with your points on (2). Reasonable means reasonable. So, member nations will have to implement reasonable measures. What’s so hard to understand?"
Sorry, couldn't resist. :D
 
Honeydewistan:
Sure, but no where did you point out that you felt that the proposal was a nothingburger, which would had been good to know
Click to expand...
Very fair point, but I kind of assumed that the proposal wasn't meant to be particularly strong.
 
Cretox State:
Against. ... I'm fine with supporting this, for the record.
Click to expand...
:eyebrow:

Anyways, if Honey is accurate in his description of the events... This behaviour reflects poorly on you and by extension TNP as a whole due to your position. I'm pretty disappointed since we previously discussed how not being prompt in raising concerns to authors reflects poorly on the region. It makes you look even worse when the author is specifically working to address your concerns and then reportedly, you do not inform them that you are not satisfied.
 
Praetor:
Anyways, if Honey is accurate in his description of the events... This behaviour reflects poorly on you and by extension TNP as a whole due to your position. I'm pretty disappointed since we previously discussed how not being prompt in raising concerns to authors reflects poorly on the region. It makes you look even worse when the author is specifically working to address your concerns and then reportedly, you do not inform them that you are not satisfied.
Click to expand...
My concerns have been addressed. For the third time, I don't have issue with the execution. It's a significant improvement over the initial version. Just because I don't personally agree with a proposal's premise doesn't mean I can't be fine with its execution.
 
Cretox State:
My concerns have been addressed. For the third time, I don't have issue with the execution. It's a significant improvement over the initial version. Just because I don't personally agree with a proposal's premise doesn't mean I can't be fine with its execution.
Click to expand...
So your concerns have been addressed, and the proposal is fine... but you oppose it still. If you don't have any concerns, doesn't that mean the proposal is beneficial even if you disagree with the premise? I don't understand
 
Last edited:
Cretox State:
My concerns have been addressed. For the third time, I don't have issue with the execution. It's a significant improvement over the initial version. Just because I don't personally agree with a proposal's premise doesn't mean I can't be fine with its execution.
Click to expand...
I did a quick check, feel free to correct me, but I don't find you stating anywhere that you disagree with the premise. The earlier comments that you raised were about the execution. If you had problems with the premise, those should have been mentioned much earlier while providing comments on the execution. It is misleading to others if you do not provide such information. It's possible to provide constructive criticism to a proposal even when you disagree with the premise. The way that your stance can be perceived now is that you didn't like the proposal, came up with reasons to vote against the proposal after it was submitted instead of during drafting, the author then suitably fixed the proposal so now you're just saying that you disagree with the premise for the lack of being able to find fault in the execution.
 
I definitely think we need a resolution that ensures benefits for those who face both mental and physical difficulties, but I don't like the implication of power struggles that the resolution is drawing from in order to make the resolution seem necessary. The less draws from critical theory in WA rationale the better off we will all be. Secondly, as previously mentioned, the requirements are vague enough where the impact on member states is minimal.

Therefore, AGAINST.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top