Disability treaty rejected

Goosedog - 2012-12-05 10:03 AM

I haven't read the treaty, but if even the propopents suggest that it won't impact Americans, who cares?  How does U.S. ratification impact other countries?

 

 

crowny2 - 2012-12-05 10:24 AM

It won't affect us in the US because the ADA is stronger than this treaty.  However, it has the potential to affect disabled Americans who go abroad. 

This treaty was modeled after the ADA which was used as the standard. 

 

crowny2 - 2012-12-05 11:24 AM However, it has the potential to affect disabled Americans who go abroad. 

mr2tony - 2012-12-05 11:24 AM Yet it's objectionable ... why? Oh yeah because the UN proposed it.

mr2tony - 2012-12-05 11:24 AM  Yet it's objectionable ... why? Oh yeah because the UN proposed it.

bradleyd3 - 2012-12-05 10:25 AM "There are two very troubling provisions in this treaty. The first spreads the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the Federal government, acting under U.N. directions, can determine for all children with disabilities what is best for them. The second, the education provision of CRPD does not support the parental rights rules of past U.N. human rights treaties. Omission of these rules would potentially eradicate parental rights for the education of children with disabilities." - Rick Santorum (father of a special needs child)

crowny2 - 2012-12-05 11:36 AM

Their concerns, rather, came from the dark world of U.N. conspiracy theories. The opponents argue that the treaty, like most everything the United Nations does, undermines American sovereignty -- in this case via a plot to keep Americans from home-schooling their children and making other decisions about their well-being.

The treaty does no such thing; if it had such sinister aims, it surely wouldn't have the support of disabilities and veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican senators such as John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal minds such as Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh.

- Dana Milbank

GomesBolt - 2012-12-05 10:36 AM

Same reason that we didn't ratify the Geneva Convention but still follow it. We don't want other countries holding us accountable to do what we feel is right.

Do the other countries not offer protections to American citizens if we don't ratify it?  If so, they're racist.

Goosedog - 2012-12-05 10:37 AM

None of this explains why ratification is appropriate.

 

crowny2 - 2012-12-05 11:38 AM

In other words, do as we say but don't tell us what to do.

crowny2 - 2012-12-05 11:24 AM

It won't affect us in the US because the ADA is stronger than this treaty.   

GomesBolt - 2012-12-05 10:36 AM

Same reason that we didn't ratify the Geneva Convention but still follow it. We don't want other countries holding us accountable to do what we feel is right.

Do the other countries not offer protections to American citizens if we don't ratify it?  If so, they're racist.

Goosedog - 2012-12-05 10:42 AM

As you've already pointed out:

 

crowny2 - 2012-12-05 11:41 AM

To be a beacon on the hill at the least?

crowny2 - 2012-12-05 11:24 AM

It won't affect us in the US because the ADA is stronger than this treaty.   

crowny2 - 2012-12-05 11:42 AM

So in that circular argument, why NOT ratify it? 

crowny2 - 2012-12-05 10:36 AM

Their concerns, rather, came from the dark world of U.N. conspiracy theories. The opponents argue that the treaty, like most everything the United Nations does, undermines American sovereignty -- in this case via a plot to keep Americans from home-schooling their children and making other decisions about their well-being.

The treaty does no such thing; if it had such sinister aims, it surely wouldn't have the support of disabilities and veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican senators such as John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal minds such as Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh.

- Dana Milbank

mr2tony - 2012-12-05 10:24 AM Yet it's objectionable ... why? Oh yeah because the UN proposed it.

bradleyd3 - 2012-12-05 10:44 AM



My quote wasn't about the paranoia of the Americans. We have the ADA and the ADAAA. We're good. His point was that if a gov't doesn't have certain rules like ours, that it would be okay for that gov't to use the language of the UN 'treaty' to determine needs for kids and/or special needs, disabled, etc. individuals.

We are in, no way, impacted by this.....but to ratify something that could potentially have detrimental affects on other nations, isn't the right thing to do.

I'm sure you can agree with that.....

bradleyd3 - 2012-12-05 10:44 AM My quote wasn't about the paranoia of the Americans. We have the ADA and the ADAAA. We're good. His point was that if a gov't doesn't have certain rules like ours, that it would be okay for that gov't to use the language of the UN 'treaty' to determine needs for kids and/or special needs, disabled, etc. individuals. We are in, no way, impacted by this.....but to ratify something that could potentially have detrimental affects on other nations, isn't the right thing to do. I'm sure you can agree with that.....

crowny2 - 2012-12-05 10:59 AM

Isn't that what the treaty is meant to do?  Get other nations to come up to the a minimum standard? 

crowny2 - 2012-12-05 10:59 AM

Isn't that what the treaty is meant to do?  Get other nations to come up to the a minimum standard? 

bradleyd3 - 2012-12-05 11:10 AM



Absolutly......that's what it's supposed to do.

However....when there is language about a gov't being able to determine what they think is best for a disabled individual....including not supporting parental rights....I woud think that would be detrimental.

Say you're a citizen of the Dominican Republic and there is no standard or law for the treatment of disabled individuals and their rights. They adopt this as their cornerstone. Great! Super! That's a step in the right direction. However, they feel that all mentally disabled children need to be put in a speial home and taken from their parents....because that's a power afforded to them by the treaty. So...now we're back to a human rights argument that a country now has the ability to say "Hey...I'm just following the treaty".