NationStates

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:22 pm**

OOC: 1a only acts on people. It could be made applicable to the state and organisations by deleting “permit the populace to”.

1b. I’d mention affordable access here as well.

1c should be broadened to cover existing employees as well as applicants. Also some sensitive wording could be inserted to make it applicable only to those able to do a job. EG a qualified carpenter who loses a limb in an accident may not be able to work as a carpenter anymore.

1d seems a bit too woolly to actually achieve anything. What is a medically certified individual? What are meticulous details? Can any lay person actually know all these details which might be very technical biological information?

1e Well integrated with what?

3 also has this nebulous medically certified individual but even so, I think this is bad practice. I know of RL doctors who sign anything put in front of them once you cross their palm with silver. You could probably look to RL equality legislation to come up with a reasonably succinct definition.

IC: “Support.”

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:00 pm**

Note: changes made are in the OP, for the draft you replied to, check draft 8

Bananaistan wrote:snip

OOC: Thanks for your feedback. Due to being busy, I can't get to all of this in one go. I'll edit this post with my responses, whenever I get to them.

1a only acts on people. It could be made applicable to the state and organisations by deleting “permit the populace to”.

1b. I’d mention affordable access here as well.

1c should be broadened to cover existing employees as well as applicants. Also some sensitive wording could be inserted to make it applicable only to those able to do a job. EG a qualified carpenter who loses a limb in an accident may not be able to work as a carpenter anymore.

1d seems a bit too woolly to actually achieve anything. What is a medically certified individual? What are meticulous details? Can any lay person actually know all these details which might be very technical biological information?

1e Well integrated with what?

I just removed "well-integrated", which must've just been left over from a previous draft.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:16 pm**

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;

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:15 pm**

OOC: I believe I've caught up with the above. That said, I'm beginning to have doubts about the category (currently Civil Rights). When Honey mentioned it, I kinda just ignored it, and I'd like to hear if anyone believes there's a more fitting category. Possibly Social Justice?

Additionally, does this look near-ready for submission? I doubt I could continue this in December, so I'm hoping to submit a few weeks from now (i.e. whenever I decide to buy stamps, or have the time to campaign manually).

Edit: Additional question, does my submitting nation need to be in the WA throughout the entire approval and voting process?

Posted: **Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:54 am**

Free Las Pinas wrote:OOC: I believe I've caught up with the above. That said, I'm beginning to have doubts about the category (currently Civil Rights). When Honey mentioned it, I kinda just ignored it, and I'd like to hear if anyone believes there's a more fitting category. Possibly Social Justice?

-snip-

Edit: Additional question, does my submitting nation need to be in the WA throughout the entire approval and voting process?

(OOC: The category seems correct to me, in that civil rights is an appropriate fit for the proposal, since lots of clause are phrased in terms of giving or recognising rights. It could also fit into social justice, with a slight amount of rewording of the preamble and some of the clauses, but I don’t see any issue with civil rights.

No, your nation just needs to be in the WA to submit, and can then immediately leave again.)

Posted: **Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:38 am**

Kenmoria wrote:
Free Las Pinas wrote:OOC: I believe I've caught up with the above. That said, I'm beginning to have doubts about the category (currently Civil Rights). When Honey mentioned it, I kinda just ignored it, and I'd like to hear if anyone believes there's a more fitting category. Possibly Social Justice?

-snip-

Edit: Additional question, does my submitting nation need to be in the WA throughout the entire approval and voting process?

(OOC: The category seems correct to me, in that civil rights is an appropriate fit for the proposal, since lots of clause are phrased in terms of giving or recognising rights. It could also fit into social justice, with a slight amount of rewording of the preamble and some of the clauses, but I don’t see any issue with civil rights.

No, your nation just needs to be in the WA to submit, and can then immediately leave again.)

Great, thanks!

Unless any issues are raised, I will be submitting any time between November 23 and December 3.

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:45 am**

Guarantee, to all people with disabilities, the right to know whatever meticulous details pertaining to their disability that their health care provider does

It is a massive waste of resources to entitle every person with a disability to university-level medical education.

Provide appropriate financial assistance to all economically-marginalized students with disabilities who genuinely seek to pursue tertiary education;

This gets into the same issues which occur with free university education broadly; see viewtopic.php?p=33088472#p33088472. Given that a substantial number of nations will not have gratis tertiary education, even for poor people, simply due to the fact that tertiary education is enormously expensive, this creates incentives for students to find doctors to declare them disabled, per the final clause, so they qualify for this grant.

a person with a disability is one who has been declared so ... by a health care provider

Edit. Re statement above, the above seems the only reading given the series qualifier canon. That said, the specifics of this definition are vague unto meaningless; a nation could require health care providers to apply overly strict criteria for disability determination, especially when GA 97 ‘Quality in Health Services’ (2010) s 4(b) requires member nations to do performance reviews for health care personnel.

Requires [members to] Amend or annul national laws, and condemn or criminalize norms and procedures, which empower discrimination on the grounds of disability;

How does this non-discrimination requirement – which applies both positively and negatively – interact with the blocking clause in Disability Welfare Act, which—

ENCOURAGES nations to put in place systems whereby those who have a disability but could work, providing the correct infrastructure and/or assistance is in place, are given the opportunity to do so.

and per Freedom to Seek Care [2017] GAS 11, viewtopic.php?p=32663234#p32663234, blocks a prohibition on member nations implementing such programmes, with the specific caveat (ie 'providing the correct infrastructure and/or assistance is in place') guaranteed in that resolution?

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:05 pm**

Will be recommending a vote against, should this reach the floor, as section 1(c) seems to indicate that workplace accommodations such as handicap parking spaces, accessibility lifts, service animals, and other disability aids would be banned as being part of "different terms and conditions, privileges, incentives, or allowances in their occupation".

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:53 pm**

Refuge Isle wrote:Will be recommending a vote against, should this reach the floor, as section 1(c) seems to indicate that workplace accommodations such as handicap parking spaces, accessibility lifts, service animals, and other disability aids would be banned as being part of "different terms and conditions, privileges, incentives, or allowances in their occupation".

(OOC: You are correct. That is such a major flaw I would perhaps recommend withdrawal, though it will be inconvenient, since that’s such a large issue for the proposal. Unless the author has a counterargument, which would of course be desirable, that is rather gaping hole in the legislation.)

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:05 pm**

Kenmoria wrote:
Refuge Isle wrote:Will be recommending a vote against, should this reach the floor, as section 1(c) seems to indicate that workplace accommodations such as handicap parking spaces, accessibility lifts, service animals, and other disability aids would be banned as being part of "different terms and conditions, privileges, incentives, or allowances in their occupation".

(OOC: You are correct. That is such a major flaw I would perhaps recommend withdrawal, though it will be inconvenient, since that’s such a large issue for the proposal. Unless the author has a counterargument, which would of course be desirable, that is rather gaping hole in the legislation.)

I too believe this should be withdraw and fixed (you'll lose minimal voting time), and I agree with every point IA made above.

Edit: In its current state, this proposal would ban workplace accommodations and grant anyone who can find any healthcare professional willing to play along sweeping and vague benefits while directly harming people with actual disabilities. Also, large parts of this are redundant with CoCR, GA 29, and other resolutions covering the same ground.

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:16 pm**

OOC: Thank you to everyone who dropped by to give feedback on this. It was tear-jerking to see so many people drop by to state their support of this topic. While I feel slightly irritated that people spotted these flaws just upon submitting, I understand these things are unpreventable and the fault is on me for not managing to give my proposal the same nitpicking I would give others' upon submission.

I've gone and withdrawn the proposal. It gained 76 approvals throughout the time I had it up, and I'm happy enough about that. I will be working on fleshing out a new draft, which will hopefully fit better for everyone. And to clarify my position before somebody twists my words, I am not putting the blame on anyone else other than myself. Just to make sure I get to acknowledge all the arguments against, I'll be checking TNP's forum, this thread, and Refugia's RMB?

Edit: I just wanted to add something to the above. I have frequently been on the fence about a lot of proposals lately, and it's because I would definitely support it by principle, but I didn't give the author/s my concerns earlier. This seems to be what happened to this proposal, so I definitely understand why you would vote against.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 12:21 am**

(OOC: First of all, thanks for withdrawing. Clearly, 1c needs to be fixed, with some wording which allows necessary changes in order to prevent inequality of opportunity. I can’t presently see anything else wrong with the draft.)

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 12:39 am**

Free Las Pinas wrote:While I feel slightly irritated that people spotted these flaws just upon submitting, I understand these things are unpreventable and the fault is on me for not managing to give my proposal the same nitpicking I would give others' upon submission.

Apologies for the abrupt comment. In all fairness, it's part of my job in TEP to review proposals that come up. I don't have nearly so much time to see everything when it's in drafting, but I have to come up with an opinion on something when it's hours away from being vote on. :lol:

I appreciate that the proposal was withdrawn for improvement.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:55 am**

Free Las Pinas has been working on a new draft since before he withdrew the most recent iteration from the queue, which should be up soon(er - rather than later!).

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:22 am**

IC: The delegation from South St Maarten will be happy to offer their full support should this be put up to vote

Posted: **Sun Dec 27, 2020 9:53 pm**

Draft 10 up. Submitting in the next week, unless there are complicated flaws that need to be fixed.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:08 pm**

Mild suggestions...

Article 1: "impairment, which" ---> "impairment which,"
Article 2b: "are to be subjected to" ---> "receive" (???)
Article 3b: How is one supposed to "improve universal social awareness and acceptance" of something (empbasis added)?

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2020 6:01 am**

Tinhampton wrote:Mild suggestions...

Article 1: "impairment, which" ---> "impairment which,"
Article 2b: "are to be subjected to" ---> "receive" (???)
Article 3b: How is one supposed to "improve universal social awareness and acceptance" of something (empbasis added)?

1 & 2: thumbs up
3: “establish a strong public awareness campaign to foster and improve universal social awareness and acceptance of people with disabilities;” ---> “uphold a positive and inclusive stance on disability, particularly in mainstream media, schools, workplaces;”

Hope that’s clearer.

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2020 6:12 am**

"[...] schools and workplaces" instead?

Posted: **Wed Dec 30, 2020 9:00 pm**

^ got that too!

I’ll likely be submitting next major (not this one). Take this as a bump for feedback.

Posted: **Fri Jan 01, 2021 11:29 pm**

This has been withdrawn

Posted: **Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:38 am**

OOC: I plan to resubmit Thursday-ish. I'll try not to withdraw it this time.

The only scenario I can imagine wherein I wouldn't be able to submit would be if my teacher decides to reschedule the thing I've been preparing for for the last few weeks, in which case, this would have to wait. Anyway, does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Posted: **Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:03 am**

Short and effective, this gets my support. Only potential (minor) concern is in clause 2c:

c. guarantee, to people with disabilities, the right to know details about their own medical condition, granted their doctor has the resources to;

Where the highlighted word comes across as slightly too vague, though I honestly do not know what to replace it with. Something along the lines of "all information available", probably.

Posted: **Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:37 am**

Vivolkha wrote:Short and effective, this gets my support. Only potential (minor) concern is in clause 2c:
c. guarantee, to people with disabilities, the right to know details about their own medical condition, granted their doctor has the resources to;

Where the highlighted word comes across as slightly too vague, though I honestly do not know what to replace it with. Something along the lines of "all information available", probably.

OOC: It now reads:

c. guarantee, to all people with disabilities, the right to all available, relevant details regarding their personal medical condition, granted it’s in their doctor’s capacity to provide such information;

I hope this works! I also changed a little more than what you suggested, looking back at some previous concerns.

Posted: **Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:06 am**

Free Las Pinas wrote:
Vivolkha wrote:Short and effective, this gets my support. Only potential (minor) concern is in clause 2c:

Where the highlighted word comes across as slightly too vague, though I honestly do not know what to replace it with. Something along the lines of "all information available", probably.

OOC: It now reads:
c. guarantee, to all people with disabilities, the right to all available, relevant details regarding their personal medical condition, granted it’s in their doctor’s capacity to provide such information;

I hope this works! I also changed a little more than what you suggested, looking back at some previous concerns.

"It's perfectly fine now, Ambassador"

NationStates

[PASSED] Supporting People with Disabilities