UN Convention on the Rights of the Disabled (NOT!) Ratified

Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
15,602
One source here, but there are several other articles online.

Former Senator Bob Dole, 89 years old and in a wheelchair, went onto to the floor of the Senate today to urge his former colleagues to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. Mr. Dole, a disabled veteran, has been one of the leading voices urging ratification of the treaty, which seeks to bring the world closer to the high standard set by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the landmark civil-rights law enacted under President George H.W. Bush.

...

Then he was wheeled away, and all but a handful of the Republicans bailed out on him. The treaty failed. It needed a two-thirds vote to pass, or 67 votes, and fell six short.

So much for America’s support of a global agreement “to promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities.”

...

Long story short, the US Senate voted in favor of, but not the two-thirds majority required, to pass a treaty based on the Americans with Disabilities Act. Only 8 Republicans voted yes alongside the Democratic caucus.

Looks like the evil globalist conspirators at the UN trying to invade America have been stopped dead in their tracks. Or we just refused to ratify a treat based on our own laws passed by a Republican president that would support the rights of disabled people and veterans worldwide. Which one is it?
 
Once again the Senate ignores the best interest of the US on a treaty. No surprise.
 
Well, that's unfortunate.
 
This is exactly what I was saying to Crezth about yahoos in the US who are against the UN because of 'national sovereignty, rahrahrah'.
 
People, this convention/treaty is already in effect and does not need the US vote for it to be implemented in nations that have already voted for it. I don't understand why you guys think this has any real bearing on the USA.

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

that wiki link above said:
The text was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 December 2006, and opened for signature on 30 March 2007. Following ratification by the 20th party, it came into force on 3 May 2008.[1] As of December 2012, it has 154 signatories and 126 parties...
 
There is a difference between signing and ratifying. Signing a treaty means you support it, ratifying it means you actualy enforce it.
 
But is it something we even need to ratify and enforce in the US? The OP clearly states the US already has the ADA. What exactly is the benefit of having this treaty apply to the US instead of just relying on our own laws already in place?
 
It sends a nice moral message and shows our (superficial) support of human rights, something that has been seriously lacking over the past few decades.
 
Our ADA does not send that message? I just don't see how we really have any business telling some country how to internally deal with disabled people.
 
Our ADA does not send that message? I just don't see how we really have any business telling some country how to internally deal with disabled people.
The point of the treaty is not to tell countries how to deal with handicapable people.

It's about countries agreeing to deal with them in a certain way.
 
People, this convention/treaty is already in effect and does not need the US vote for it to be implemented in nations that have already voted for it. I don't understand why you guys think this has any real bearing on the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_Persons_with_Disabilities
So why not just vote yes if it is window dressing?
What did we stand to lose that senators voted no? Serious question, as I haven't spent time looking into this.
 
to be honest i dont know why we let the un tell us what to do. i f u ask me the usa sohuld secede from the un and form its own conutry
 
I guess it's a good thing the original act only required a majority of senators to vote for it given how controversial it was.

Opposition from religious groups

The debate over the Americans with Disabilities Act led some religious groups to take opposite positions.[16] Some religious groups, such as the Association of Christian Schools International, opposed the ADA in its original form.[17] ACSI opposed the Act primarily because the ADA labeled religious institutions public accommodations, and thus would have required churches to make costly structural changes to ensure access for all.[18] The cost argument advanced by ACSI and others prevailed in keeping religious institutions from being labeled as public accommodations, and thus churches were permitted to remain inaccessible if they choose.

In addition to opposing the ADA on grounds of cost, church groups like the National Association of Evangelicals testified against the ADA's Title I (employment) provisions on grounds of religious liberty. The NAE felt that the regulation of the internal employment of churches was "... an improper intrusion [of] the federal government."[16]

Opposition from business interests

Many members of the business community opposed the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Testifying before Congress, Greyhound Bus Lines stated that the Act had the potential to "...deprive millions of people of affordable intercity public transportation and thousands of rural communities of their only link to the outside world." The US Chamber of Commerce argued that the costs of the ADA would be "enormous" and have "a disastrous impact on many small businesses struggling to survive."[19] The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an organization that lobbies for small businesses, called the ADA "a disaster for small business."[20] Pro-business conservative commentators joined in opposition, writing that the Americans with Disabilities Act was "an expensive headache to millions" that would not necessarily improve the lives of people with disabilities.[21]

What I don't understand is why Robert Dole remains a die hard Republican when so many in his own party openly discriminate against him. He should take a cue from the blacks and Hispanics.
 
But is it something we even need to ratify and enforce in the US? The OP clearly states the US already has the ADA. What exactly is the benefit of having this treaty apply to the US instead of just relying on our own laws already in place?

What's the point of international conventions anyway, then? Maybe we should just get rid of them.

This was a ******** move by the Republicans. May their party splinter off into many different pieces and disappear from mainstream politics.
 
It's breathtaking for me to see (off-line) people arguing that simultaneously 1) the UN is a playground for dictators and should be ignored, and 2) there is no point in ratifying treaties like this. I think some of the people posting in this very thread are guilty of such, if over a longer time period.

These global human rights treaties are supposed to be ratified by the nations that have already put the laws on the books. It's a measure to support human rights abroad, it costs virtually nothing to implement since it already is, and it's good diplomacy. You would think it would be self-evident that nations where these rights are not held are not going to take the lead on this--for example, no sane person would think Saudi Arabia would take the lead on promoting womens' rights in the UN. Nations ratify the treaties they agree with.
 
John Hockenberry's discussion about this topic w/ Michael Ferris, broadcast yesterday on The Takeaway, is well worth listening to if you are interested in this topic.

Hockenberry, who uses a wheelchair, really puts Ferris's feet to the fire over Ferris's refusal to support the measure.

The thing I enjoyed the most about that exchange is that Ferris attempts to stand on his principles while at the same time coming w/ phony justifications for why he opposes the measure. I would have respected Ferris, although disagreed with him, if he simply said he opposed the measure based on the fact that it does not respect the sovereignty of the US, but Ferris goes on to give some phoney bologna about how the measure itself was ineffective. Which is it, Ferris? Do you opposed it based on the principle or because it is a bad law?
 
But is it something we even need to ratify and enforce in the US? The OP clearly states the US already has the ADA. What exactly is the benefit of having this treaty apply to the US instead of just relying on our own laws already in place?


The reasons to ratify this would be that the federal law and the treaty may not be the same, and so the treaty could be more beneficial than the law. And the other reason is simple diplomacy. Bill Clinton made the statement in a speech that “people the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.” In order to lead by example we have to actually, you know, lead by example. The more issues the US falls behind on because some Americans don't want to be mildly inconvenienced in what they do continues to grow. And in doing so the leadership of America in the world continues to erode.

We are building a world in which our influence is waning because we refuse to act in accordance with how we tell the rest of the world to act.
 
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...n-un-treaty-gop-and-critics-slam-threat-to-us

...

Analysts point out that the United States already has among the most robust protections for handicapped citizens anywhere in the world. They say the idea that Americans need orders from the UN on this issue or any other matter is preposterous, to say the least. Instead, more than a few critics have complained, the UN CRPD, like other global treaties, is simply another power grab by planetary bureaucrats hoping to gradually increase their control over domestic law and policy in as many fields and nations as possible.

"As can be seen in the UN’s official documents and in the conduct of the UN since 1945, the world body is constantly accumulating power," noted President John F. McManus with The John Birch Society, a conservative organization that has firmly opposed the UN and its scheming for five decades. "It has already gained much and CRPD is another step toward total power."

The agreement, for instance, purports to grant governments broad and dangerously vague powers to intrude on family life, supposedly to ensure that parents of disabled children are being cared for according to the UN’s dictates. Of course, the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government any such authorities, so the treaty would appear to be unconstitutional on its face, according to experts. Still, with Washington, D.C.’s reputation for brazenly ignoring constitutional limitations, activists say it is crucial to oppose the UN CRPD.

...

“It undermines U.S. sovereignty, and it tries to internationalize domestic policy. I’m uncomfortable with that,” Sen. Lee said about the treaty, highlighting troubling language that would seek to make government and politicians the arbiter of what is in the supposed “best interest” of children. ”The problem with that is that it takes away rights that belong to parents, and it threatens to potentially put the government in charge of decisions that ought to be made by the family and not by the government.”

That is one of the reasons homeschooling families and advocates have been helping to lead the charge to defeat the controversial UN treaty. The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and other influential groups, for example, have warned that the agreement could be a serious threat to homeschoolers — especially if the children have some sort of disability.

HSLDA Chairman Michael Farris, who testified against the treaty before the Senate, pointed out that the Swedish and German governments have both ratified UN agreements, yet they still viciously persecute homeschoolers. He warned that ratification of the disabilities treaty could eventually lead to serious problems for American parents, too.

...

Another one of the most contentious issues surrounding the treaty is a section dealing with abortion. Pro-life groups are up in arms about the purported treaty requirement that governments guarantee “reproductive health” access, long understood and even admitted to be just a more politically palatable term covering everything from tax-funded contraception and sterilization to abortion.

Family Research Council chief Tony Perkins, for example, cited Article 25 of the agreement purporting to mandate “free or affordable” access to “sexual and reproductive health,” as well as so-called “population-based” programs. “Translation: the global community could force America to sanction sterilization or abortion for the disabled–at taxpayer expense,” Perkins warned, pointing to a failed effort by GOP senators to prevent the imposition of pro-abortion policies on treaty signatories.

So, not just a disabilities act, but a UN push to force the US to increase abortions and destroy home schooling, among other things. Thinking maybe it was a good thing our GOP Senators were looking out for us on this one.
 
Back
Top Bottom