NationStates

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:42 am**

Repeal "Rights of the Disabled Act"
Category: Repeal | Target: GAR #227

Noting that GAR #227, the "Rights of the Disabled Act," is well-intentioned and seeks to protect the mentally disabled; but

Concerned that numerous problems in the text of "Rights of the Disabled Act" make it ineffective and sometimes even harmful;

Troubled that "Rights of the Disabled Act" classifies people as "mentally disabled" based on an arbitrary "two-out-of-four" system, rather than solid medical science and/or the professional opinion of a doctor;

Worried that such a system may be both over-broad by including individuals who are not truly mentally disabled and under-broad by failing to count others who are;

Also Troubled by the mandate in "Rights of the Disabled Act" requiring that the rights of mentally disabled people be exercised by a responsible adult in "necessary cases," without needed clarification about what constitutes a "necessary case" and without any regard to whether the mentally disabled person is able to make sound decisions despite their disability;

Worried that the ambiguity in such a system may result in mentally disabled people being wrongfully denied the ability to exercise their own rights;

Deeply Troubled by the flawed definition of a "responsible adult," which allows an uninterested, non-family member to exercise the rights of a disabled person "in lieu of a suitable candidate;"

Convinced that the many flaws in "Rights of the Disabled Act" render it problematic, unworkable, and sometimes harmful to the very people it is supposed to protect;

For all the forgoing reasons, THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY REPEALS: General Assembly Resolution #227: "Rights of the Disabled Act"

Thoughts? I'm very interested if others have additional arguments for repealing "Rights of the Disabled Act" that I missed.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:48 am**

That troubled clause is probably your most persuasive argument(and the one least open to interpretation). The rest will have a lot of folks arguing, because a lack of definition is easily filled in by a national legislature.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:02 am**

The Dourian Embassy wrote:That troubled clause is probably your most persuasive argument(and the one least open to interpretation). The rest will have a lot of folks arguing, because a lack of definition is easily filled in by a national legislature.

Thank you for your reply!

My point in the "also troubled" line is that the act requires taking away the rights of mentally disabled people without fully explaining when that's appropriate. I don't mean to turn nations against each other, but it's certainly concerning to pro-liberty nations (like mine) if some nations are treating, say, voting as a "necessary case" and transfering a mentally disabled person's vote to someone else. That's a pretty serious problem, imo. Maybe there is there a better way to word that concern?

As for the "deeply troubled" line, I am deeply troubled that - apparently because of poor writing - what the resolution actually says is that an uninterested, non-family member may exercise the rights of a mentally disabled person "in lieu of a suitable candidate." That doesn't seem right at all if what you're trying to do is protect the rights of the mentally disabled.

Thanks again for your comments!

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:30 am**

Mosktopia wrote:As for the "deeply troubled" line, I am deeply troubled that - apparently because of poor writing - what the resolution actually says is that an uninterested, non-family member may exercise the rights of a mentally disabled person "in lieu of a suitable candidate." That doesn't seem right at all if what you're trying to do is protect the rights of the mentally disabled.

"If a mentally disabled person doesn't have any legally competent family members (or not ones who could be trusted to exercise those rights properly, anyhows) then wouldn't somebody from outside their family -- a person presumably to be appointed by some court or tribunal within the relevant nation's legal system -- be the only alternative available?"

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:37 am**

Bears Armed wrote:"If a mentally disabled person doesn't have any legally competent family members (or not ones who could be trusted to exercise those rights properly, anyhows) then wouldn't somebody from outside their family -- a person presumably to be appointed by some court or tribunal within the relevant nation's legal system -- be the only alternative available?"

Yes, but my point is that the wording of the resolution allows a disinterested non-family member to be appointed instead of a family member ~~or the disabled person's chosen representative~~. It's not worded as a back-up failsafe, it's worded as an alternative.

"In lieu of a suitable candidate" means "instead of a suitable candidate." It does not mean "when an otherwise suitable candidate cannot be found." I understand that the author may have intended the third option to be a back-up plan, but that's not what their words accomplished. My understanding is that a resolution does what it says, regardless of what the author's intent was.

Edit: I realize, looking back, that the resolution does say a preferred representative "will be the first person requested," so I struck that part of my reply out.

Posted: **Sun Nov 03, 2013 11:42 am**

Given the speed with which this went to submission combined with the lack of a replacement for what I feel is an important issue, I'm afraid I cannot support this at the present time.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:11 pm**

Wheeled States of Bifid wrote:Given the speed with which this went to submission combined with the lack of a replacement for what I feel is an important issue, I'm afraid I cannot support this at the present time.

I really didn't expect it to make quorum... I was just checking for interest. I suppose I'm happy that it made it, since I do believe in my argument.

As far as a replacement, I don't personally feel like drafting one but if someone did I wouldn't be opposed so long as it offered real protection instead of the wrongheaded paternalism of the target resolution.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:39 pm**

Mosktopia wrote:
Wheeled States of Bifid wrote:Given the speed with which this went to submission combined with the lack of a replacement for what I feel is an important issue, I'm afraid I cannot support this at the present time.

I really didn't expect it to make quorum... I was just checking for interest. I suppose I'm happy that it made it, since I do believe in my argument.

As far as a replacement, I don't personally feel like drafting one but if someone did I wouldn't be opposed so long as it offered real protection instead of the wrongheaded paternalism of the target resolution.

We actually have similar thoughts about a replacement. I've started working on something. I don't think it's bad but I won't say it's good yet either. I'll probably post it for drafting next week.

Posted: **Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:41 pm**

Wheeled States of Bifid wrote:
Mosktopia wrote:I really didn't expect it to make quorum... I was just checking for interest. I suppose I'm happy that it made it, since I do believe in my argument.

As far as a replacement, I don't personally feel like drafting one but if someone did I wouldn't be opposed so long as it offered real protection instead of the wrongheaded paternalism of the target resolution.

We actually have similar thoughts about a replacement. I've started working on something. I don't think it's bad but I won't say it's good yet either. I'll probably post it for drafting next week.

We've had a replacement on ice for a while. You even commented on it and seemed generally supportive, though we recall that you had some suggestions. (As this was nearly a year ago, we're unsure if we got around to making appropriate amendments; please advise.)

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:34 pm**

My understanding is that a resolution does what it says, regardless of what the author's intent was.

Not technically true. The resolution acts like a directive to States to enact laws covering the guidelines the resolution. It would then be up to the judicature in each state to interpret that law within the bounds of the resolution. Should any dispute arise, it would not be unreasonable for Courts to examine minutes where unclear terms exist to see what the Legislature intended when they pass the the resolution.

But we are against this repeal unless there is a draft ready to replace it. While it has some shortcomings it has adequate safeguard mechanism to do a job.

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:18 am**

Given Linux and the X's replacement on the way, I support this. I believe the proposed alternative is clearer and better suited to international law by far. That, hand in hand with the draft on guardianship, will likely button up this issue quite nicely. Provided they don't change dramatically, my support here will remain.

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:52 am**

Arnor and Gondor- wrote:Not technically true. The resolution acts like a directive to States to enact laws covering the guidelines the resolution. It would then be up to the judicature in each state to interpret that law within the bounds of the resolution. Should any dispute arise, it would not be unreasonable for Courts to examine minutes where unclear terms exist to see what the Legislature intended when they pass the the resolution.

Okay, but what about when the legislation explicitly says one thing because they mistakenly believe it means another?

That's what I think happened in "Rights of the Disabled Act." When the author said an uninterested, non-family member can exercise the rights of a disabled person "in lieu of" a suitable candidate, they meant "if there is no" suitable candidate. But that's not what "in lieu of" actually means. "In lieu of" means "instead of" and what the resolution actually does is allow an uninterested, non-family member to exercise the rights of a disabled person "instead of" a suitable candidate.

At the very best, that's bad workmanship unbefitting a WA resolution. At the worst, it allows unscrupulous nations to do assign the rights of disabled persons over to unsuitable guardians in the name of protecting the disabled person. Either way, I think it's worth mentioning in a repeal of Rights of the Disabled Act.

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:20 am**

Mosktopia wrote:
Arnor and Gondor- wrote:Not technically true. The resolution acts like a directive to States to enact laws covering the guidelines the resolution. It would then be up to the judicature in each state to interpret that law within the bounds of the resolution. Should any dispute arise, it would not be unreasonable for Courts to examine minutes where unclear terms exist to see what the Legislature intended when they pass the the resolution.

Okay, but what about when the legislation explicitly says one thing because they mistakenly believe it means another?

That's what I think happened in "Rights of the Disabled Act." When the author said an uninterested, non-family member can exercise the rights of a disabled person "in lieu of" a suitable candidate, they meant "if there is no" suitable candidate. But that's not what "in lieu of" actually means. "In lieu of" means "instead of" and what the resolution actually does is allow an uninterested, non-family member to exercise the rights of a disabled person "instead of" a suitable candidate.

At the very best, that's bad workmanship unbefitting a WA resolution. At the worst, it allows unscrupulous nations to do assign the rights of disabled persons over to unsuitable guardians in the name of protecting the disabled person. Either way, I think it's worth mentioning in a repeal of Rights of the Disabled Act.

Well, hold up for a tick. Members are allowed to add in more strict legislation on the subject, so its reasonable to assume that family members are going to, legally speaking, be a first choice when this comes to court in a nation. I believe that the legislation allows for a disinterested third party to serve because there are circumstances that a disinterested third party would be preferable. I believe the author may have intended this clause to allow for such a circumstance.

That's not to say that the argument for a repeal isn't sound, but let's not assume the author had no idea what he or she was doing. While most of us ambassadors are, at the heart of it, incompetent, let's not advertize it!

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:50 am**

This repeal seems grounded in very tenuous claims and shows a deeply troubling lack of regard for the ability of sovereign nation states to interpret international law. While said lack of regard may not be wholly unfounded, it runs contrary to this body's directive as a global organizational body rather than an international babysitter.

Dr. Giovanni Romero, PhD
Senior Ambassador Plenipotentiary,
His Majesty's Embassy to the World Assembly
The Sublime Island Kingdom of Astrolinium

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:58 am**

Astrolinium wrote:This repeal seems grounded in very tenuous claims and shows a deeply troubling lack of regard for the ability of sovereign nation states to interpret international law. While said lack of regard may not be wholly unfounded, it runs contrary to this body's directive as a global organizational body rather than an international babysitter.

The argument about the way in which "Rights of the Disabled Act" classifies people as mentally disabled is not a matter of interpretation. I do not think we should be classifying people as mentally ill in such an arbitrary way. At the very least, the resolution should have required a doctor's opinion before someone is designated "mentally disabled."

The other arguments are admittedly based on the potential for abuse. I do not think that many of our good member nations would abuse the law, but the potential for abuse remains. While the argument is not as strong as the primary argument above, I still think that nations should consider the clarity and potential for abuse of a law in casting their vote on a repeal. Especially a law such as this one, which requires member nations to restrict certain individuals from exercising their rights for themselves.

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:21 pm**

Add the word "repeal" to this thread's title, please.

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:23 pm**

Araraukar wrote:Add the word "repeal" to this thread's title, please.

Good catch.

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:49 pm**

I wonder if I'm the only one delighted by the recent trend of repeals?

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:58 pm**

The Emerald Legion wrote:I wonder if I'm the only one delighted by the recent trend of repeals?

I sincerely hope so. The sheer number in recent weeks is, frankly, ridiculous.

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:01 pm**

Astrolinium wrote:
The Emerald Legion wrote:I wonder if I'm the only one delighted by the recent trend of repeals?

I sincerely hope so. The sheer number in recent weeks is, frankly, ridiculous.

I tend to agree. Sometimes a little housecleaning can help get the creative juices flowing (or something; I'm not sure those metaphors worked).

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:06 pm**

OOC: Even I think it's got a bit heavy lately - I wouldn't be sorry to see a couple of decent substantive resolutions next up after this.

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:17 pm**

Mosktopia wrote:
Astrolinium wrote:
I sincerely hope so. The sheer number in recent weeks is, frankly, ridiculous.

I tend to agree. Sometimes a little housecleaning can help get the creative juices flowing (or something; I'm not sure those metaphors worked).

I'm not sure you understand that I'm disagreeing with you.

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:22 pm**

Astrolinium wrote:
Mosktopia wrote:I tend to agree. Sometimes a little housecleaning can help get the creative juices flowing (or something; I'm not sure those metaphors worked).

I'm not sure you understand that I'm disagreeing with you.

Oh. I know you voted against the repeal, but I thought we were agreeing that it would be nice to see some substantive resolutions in the future, since there's been a lot of repeals lately.

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:33 pm**

Mosktopia wrote:
Astrolinium wrote:I'm not sure you understand that I'm disagreeing with you.

Oh. I know you voted against the repeal, but I thought we were agreeing that it would be nice to see some substantive resolutions in the future, since there's been a lot of repeals lately.

I would like to see some substantive resolutions in the present and the recent past, as well.

Posted: **Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:32 pm**

i would love this sort of act to come though the British Parliament

NationStates

[PASSED] Repeal "Rights of the Disabled Act"

[PASSED] Repeal "Rights of the Disabled Act"