[PASSED] Enabling The Disabled in Academia

[THE UNITED FEDERATION OF ALGORENIA]

But yet again you continue to substantiate your argument with the economic hyperbole! Just as there is a cost for empowerment, there is a cost of neglect and for far too long over numerous generations countries and citizens who are dealing with these issues have fronted the capital costs and them some. If even we were to narrow the argument down through a purely economic lens, this is an investment in a segment of human capital that is in dire need and ready to contribute! You're economic hyperbole dilutes and entirely neglects the fact that these people in the majority of cases never had a fair chance or the ability to spend "50 Trillion" on improving their lives, much less have a fair shot at a decent equitable education!

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley: Yet again? We haven't even appeared in this chamber since the start of this charade. However that is, it seems clear to me that you don't understand the idea that there exist limited resources. The comparative here is not between action and inaction, but rather action and utterly needless extravagance.

E MW: Also, section 2, 'A Promotion of Basic Education'. This 'fair shot' already exists, even if your publicists keep at denying reality, conjuring new illusions to enthral to the general public, and investing in reductive clichéd platitudes to stick on car bumpers. If all the proposal has to peddle is an extravagant nostrum labelled 'panacea' to solve a pretended problem, we need it not.

again, your argument hinders on the false pretense that a vote for this resolution will front heavy costs on nations do to "extravagance". you again neglect the basic fundamental that this population does not have extravagances and often times do not have the fundamental access and representation necessary for them to excel. Your argument also assumes that current amenities allocated for these citizens suffice, but neglect that the current conditions available may not allow all disabled students to learn in a conducive manner that allows for self and national growth in academic institutions and beyond and all the while neglects the improvement that this offers due to the fictitious economic costs you have fabricated.

Effectively, due to your narrowing down of this issue through a purely economic lens, you eschew any potential for social equity and growth, economic vitalization, and civic empowerment due to a false illusion of robust cost, effectively generating (and in your case supporting) a glass ceiling for disabled students across the globe which will continue to disenfranchise them by sustaining sub par standards of accessibility, all the while labeling this call for educational and social improvement a mere " bumper sticker platitude".

While you call this bumper sticker platitude, those who have a chance to enjoy a better quality of education and a real shot at the future call this opportunity...

[Covenstone]

Despite the arguments posed by the opposition forces, me being the author of this legislation, i have to address the three main concerns which seem to have taken center stage in this camp. Those arguments being that one being there was no draft, two that this inflicts a high economic cost on nations, and three that by enforcing inclusive, the resolution is supposedly inherently exclusive and damaging.

in addressing the first grievance, To argue that a resolution should be stricken down simply because it didn't have a draft is the epitome of pettiness and causes us to miss the grand impact that this resolution was built upon. This resolution was built do to the need for enfranchisement of those who were forced to take a back seat to educational and social affairs. To claim that they need to continue to be disenfranchised until future resolutions can be made undermines the success that has been made today and calls into question whether or not these leaders truly value their disabled citizenry. They would much rather lose this battle in totally and start back at zero rather than join the fight for empowerment. These people have waited far too long and now is the time, now is the moment to bring the quality of life up! formality is Absolutely NO excuse for continued disenfranchisement at the whim of political rhetoric!

Secondly, in addressing the economic impact, these leaders fail to understand that these people have already suffered the economic impact of previous negligence of their socioeconomic condition. Generations of these peoples have been thrown to the side and to rally behind the cost making accommodation a reality for them is egregious. Every time we tax our citizens to build roads, to strengthen our armies, to build schools, or expand to the stars there is a cost. There is also a cost of neglecting the citizens this resolution seeks to enfranchise, and these people have already paid far to high a price! To further note, the WA is an international organization built upon the premise of unifying nations against issues that afflict our respective nations and if we are truly the capable and able organization we make ourselves out to be, we are More than capable of assisting one another in this matter.

Lastly, in addressing the concern regarding the purported exclusiveness in this resolution, there is no such phenomenon. This resolution was constructed keenly with improving access to those who were denied access, due to economics, due to societal views, due to standards of academia. This resolution pushes us to improve those standards and provide an outlet for those suffering from afflictions to have a seat at shaping their own destinies. Specialization is a hotly talked about option, but specialization without a guiding basis is USELESS! This resolution was designed to provide a solid building block that address the needs of those being forgotten in academia, all the while opening new doors for future generations and as such should be supported!

Again, the time is now to stand! Whether we utilize reason to stand for empowerment or utilize misconstrued reason to stand for continued disenfranchisement, the time is now!

The problem with having no debate before you post it, is that all the arguments you are making in favour of this proposal, however good they may be, however strong they might sound, are too little too late.

So while this might be the Greatest Proposal In The History of Humanity (tm), you aren't going to be able to properly get that message across because no one is going to read the arguments because there aren't any.

*shrug* I am new(ish) and I have rarely seen a proposal get approved without any drafting or debate. But if you name it "We love puppies and blind people" and campaign, almost anyone will vote to approve it.

But now it comes to actually passing it, people will read it, and want to see the arguments for and against. But so far the arguments for and against appear to be "anyone who votes, or even speaks up, against it is a meany-butt" which are not good.

My question about the lack of limits on the definition of "disability" was not unreasonable, since the government is required to pay for all this and there is nothing on the proposal that the allows the government to place limits on the spending.

[Bananaistan]

"This whole thing is nothing but a feel good, nonsense, bumper sticker that in reality requires very little of member states due to the fact that clause 2 only applies to students with disabilities who are attending "academic settings". Now a nation so inclined to not allow "disabled students" to attend "academic settings" has nothing to do.

"Also, clause 1 contains the meaningless term "disabled student training". The proposal does not tell us exactly what "disabled student training" is. Your guess is as good as mine.

"A nation could also reasonably discharge its responsibilities under clause 3 by, say, putting a pair of crutches in each school and telling teachers to hold the door open for anyone entering a classroom.

"Furthermore, your definition of disabled covers everything from a hamstring strain or being too short to be competitive at basketball, to depression or serious psychological conditions and you are effectively trying (but failing) to implement an inappropriate one size fits all policy."

[Incantata Phantasia]

"We find the intentions of this proposal to be praiseworthy, and would like to see a better effort of constructiveness to its critics. Sure there may be some worried about the costs, but that does not mean that the situation of the disable should be forever neglected by this assembly, nor that we cannot research and propose only the most cost-effective measures of accessibility."
"But then, this is not a draft, and gives us no time for research nor opportunity to change the text, so..."

[Harmony Ascendant]

In addressing the first grievance, To argue that a resolution should be stricken down simply because it didn't have a draft is the epitome of pettiness and causes us to miss the grand impact that this resolution was built upon

Harmony Ascendant fully supports this cause, as those with disabilities looking to better their lives should certainly be given the opportunity to do just that. However, by putting it to a vote without taking comments and criticisms, you've made it a simple yes/no proposal. Concerns others have raised aren't given the chance to be voiced and considered. They can speak them now of course, but there's no possibility for it to be changed, to have their concerns addressed.

To simplify that argument down to "You want to strike this down because I didn't follow procedure." is to miss the argument entirely. No one who has yet spoken is upset over a breach in protocol. The issue being raised is that there are problems in the bill that prevent it from doing what it intends and puts an incredible burden on states for edge cases that,while extremely rare, do exist. Had you put forth a draft, such problems could've been changed and rectified. Or ignored, if you choose to be egocentric about it. But at this stage, these aren't things that can be changed about the bill. They are simply stating the problems with it that means they can't support it, there's no debate to be had.

Stating that the problems don't exist and insulting the opposition isn't going to change anyone's mind, and certainly isn't going to win you any friends in future efforts.

Harmony Ascendant stands opposed on the grounds that this bill's vague wording leaves a lot of questionable spaces to operate in. However, we sincerely hope another attempt is made at this, as the cause is worthy.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Feel free to review and comment on the proposal at hand!

ARI: At the risk of beating a deceasad domesticated equine, it's pointless to "review and comment" at this time, as no improvements can be made once it's at vote. It's really a shame, since this is the sort of topic we can support. We've cast a token vote in favor of the resolution, and hope that this encourages the author to keep trying, and, in the future, post drafts here in the General Assembly debate halls prior to submission, so we can, together, craft legislation that will pass muster.

[THE UNITED FEDERATION OF ALGORENIA]

The same arguments continue to reverberate but miss out on the key fact that we have yet to have a resolution addressing this segment of society pass the halls of the WA. By shadowing ourselves behind economic costs, what protocols and formalities should be considered, and definitions that seek to exclude and limit responsibility, some leaders are failing to take the initiative to address this crucial matter and instead trying to play the political system to escape or mitigate their responsibility to their people.

We're putting a price tag on the lives of people and effectively declaring some people to broken of an item to enfranchise, we're opening the door for governments to discriminate between disabilities without taking into account the inhibitions these children face and the impact it has on their lives and instead looking at who should be protected and given a fair shot and who can be excluded, and were relying on fanciful formalities to nullify a shining moment that we all have to make a lasting impact on the lives of billions of children throughout the world!

Prior to this, these people had NO voice arguing for equality and opportunity, NO acknowledgement of their conditions or anything set forth to rectify it, and NO true opportunity to resolve their disenfranchisement! Rather than focus on conflated short comings, we need to seize the moment and show a resolve to stem the tide of generations of this segment within our societies from being excluded and trounced upon! These people have already been cast aside enough and with them being at the cusp of progress, it would be damning to shut them out this close to progress!

The current status quo of the WA lacks the fundamental structure within the WA has the ability to make progress with this realm, and with this we can have that initial footing that is sound enough to present enfranchisement & inclusion for those it addresses and promote progression for the future! The only thing keeping us from having that reality are those who fail to see the big picture and hear the cries of the socially and economically subverted, and instead stand on the oppressive basis of economics and formality.

Further more, in regards to voice- This legislation has proven that there is a robust contingent of leaders who value the empowerment of their disabled citizenry and would like to properly enfranchise and integrate them with the opportunity they deserve. Rather than build robust walls of opposition and polarize this issue more than need be, we need to take the current steps in driving towards a more inclusive and bountiful future.

[Covenstone]

DEFINES disabled, for the purposes of this resolution, as having a physical or mental condition that limits movements, senses, or activities,
DEFINES a disabled student, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who suffers from the above series of limitations and attends any academic setting where the disbursement of knowledge takes place in a class setting,

1. Instructs the Educational systems of all WA member nations to incorporate adequate disabled student training into their administrator and teacher training process;

2. Requires WA member nations to create necessary transportation, ramp and/ or elevator accessibility, and instructional requirements for disabled students attending academic settings and seek the proper assistance if necessary in making these accommodations;

3. Requires WA member nations to earnestly enforce measures designed to stop the overt and covert discrimination and non accommodation of disabled students within their domains;

4. Urges member nations to pass legislation promoting greater accountability in the transportation, education, and sustainment of disabled students within their own borders.

We have further questions, and since we were encouraged to "to review and comment" I think that we are going to take advantage of that.

The definition of "disabled" has no real limits on it, so (as has been pointed out by other nations) anyone could, should they be hurt, injured or otherwise temporarily rendered not fully functional (so to speak) claim under this proposal. If I were to injure my leg, and be unable to walk for six weeks, I could (in theory) be classed as disabled for those six weeks. Even though for the rest of my time on this planet, I am able to run, jump and skip like an athlete, for those six weeks, I would be classified by this proposal as disabled.

And while, being the leader and Crown Princess of Covenstone, I am not likely to be going to school, I do occasionally attend training seminars for the new laws that my government just insists on passing (I know! The temerity!) which, one could argue, is an academic setting where the disbursement of knowledge takes place in a class setting.

So I would say that if I broke my leg before one of those training courses then, despite the fact I am the leader of my nation, the Crown Princess of Covenstone and quite capable of taking care of myself (because I have an army of minions to run around after me, and actually I LITERALLY have an actual army to run around after me if I should so desire), I would be able to charge the government, and the tax-payers of my country for my training.

This seems somehow wrong and a tad disingenuous at best, and a total rip-off at worst.

But, even setting THAT improbable scenario aside, there is another bigger issue.

We don't have a university, or school, in every town and city. Sure, we have more schools than universities (like most countries, I would imagine), but generally most students have to travel some distance to school, and every student either has to live on campus or travel more distance to university. It is just the way things are, because we can't build world class universities in every city. We don't have the money, we don't have the staff and we don't have the space.

So if we are now required to provide transport for the disabled students (and we have NO CLUE at this point what that transport would entail, by the way) then this could mean transporting students from several miles. When I was of educatable age, I travelled about an hour on the train each day (and each direction) to attend university, because my parents couldn't afford to pay for me to live nearer. That was about twenty miles each way (by road). So would this require us to send out a bus to pick up the students each day? What if they all live in different directions? Would we need multiple busses? Or would we have to start off at 6am to get them all to class on time?

Or if that is completely unacceptable (and not cost-effective) would we have to let them stay on campus, kicking out other students and making THEM travel to and from university each day? What if they live at the other end of the country? Or do we kick them out and make them live in off campus housing that might be more expensive just so we can meet our obligations under the non-discrimination clauses?

I really have no problem with installing ramps, lifts and other such things into buildings, and providing materials in braille, allowing Dictaphones and so forth in the classrooms. They are all penny-ante stuff that would be a one time cost and wouldn't require much change.

But the transportation, the lack of definition on the classification of "disabled" (both on a lower and upper limit) and the general requirements makes this a proposal that, as I said, could end up costing our universities and our government and our tax-payers millions, if not billions. And while the people of Covenstone are not ones to (for want of a better phrase) crap on the disabled and not ones to think they should all stay in their homes, their beds and just keep quiet until they died, we believe this proposal was ill conceived, ill defined and ill thought through.

And, incidentally, THIS is exactly why you submit proposals for drafting, for discussion and for debate. Because other view points than yours are sometimes helpful (and I realise there might be an irony to me saying that) and if you can iron out problems in the drafting and pre-submission phase, you might have more of a chance of passing it once it gets to the floor of the chamber.

I don't care that it didn't follow protocol, that's not why I am voting against it. I am voting against it because it is a badly thought out proposal that will never work in practice.

[The Ninja5 Empire]

After reading that there was a lack of a draft and debate beforehand, the Ninja5 Empire will change its vote to against.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The same arguments continue to reverberate but miss out on the key fact that we have yet to have a resolution addressing this segment of society pass the halls of the WA. By shadowing ourselves behind economic costs, what protocols and formalities should be considered, and definitions that seek to exclude and limit responsibility, some leaders are failing to take the initiative to address this crucial matter and instead trying to play the political system to escape or mitigate their responsibility to their people.

"Ambassador, your self-righteousness is a good source of fire for you to draw on, but it's completely misplaced here. What you've done is to take a valid issue that absolutely needs to be addressed, and given it the most half-assed, slapdash, disrespectful possible treatment. You are being opposed here NOT because anyone wants to keep screwing over disabled people, but because this resolution would do a singularly crappy job of helping them out. We in the World Assembly have pride, standards, and the knowledge that you can't just toss out a buzzword-laden word salad and expect it to make good law! You need to get it in your head, sir, that most people agree with you that a resolution in this area is necessary; and even that this particular draft might have been edited into something that ably addresses its subject. The problem is that in its current state, this resolution will A) do a piss-poor job of it, and B) block further efforts in this area. You're doing neither yourself nor any people with disabilities any favors with your obstreperous insistence that your way is the only way. Unlike the Wads, we don't believe that conduct should be rewarded and we therefore vote wholeheartedly AGAINST."

OOC: Dude, the most basic part of writing international law is getting input from other people who can see things you might have missed. This is a collaborative effort for all but the most accomplished legislators, and even they often ask for input from others. "It's a marathon, not a sprint." This may not be the most realistic game out there, but it's at least faithful to that piece of reality: nobody gets a law passed without being able to accept polite and constructive criticism. This proposal in its current state is simply not up to the standards of the modern WA. We would like to help you get it there! Please let us help you!

[Ceaga]

...noting the disenfranchisement of disabled students has the potential to cause extreme [...] economic harm [...] through the deterioration or degradation of social equity, for example: [...] hindering social stability by destroying or causing a decline in the image of a common national bond, and nullifying the possible economic progression by under utilizing the cultural, industrial, and scientific capital these citizens could contribute...

Affirmative action measures, like this resolution, replace job allocation based on merit/capabilities with arbitrary regulations based on social strata. That's a much higher economic damage than the under-usage of an already tiny industrial capital from disabled citizens.

Not to mention it is outright antidemocratic when applied to political office, restricting the pool of candidates for the popular vote.

No support, I'm afraid.

[Araraukar]

Against, because:

• No drafting thread was posted, where errors could have been pointed out.
• The errors, which include concepts, grammar, punctuation and capitalization, both lack and overuse of.
• OOC: The badge-hunting attitude, where all criticism of the proposal is brushed aside as personal attacks, rather than admitting there are flaws and errors.

Prior to this, these people had NO voice arguing for equality and opportunity, NO acknowledgement of their conditions or anything set forth to rectify it, and NO true opportunity to resolve their disenfranchisement!

Except existing resolutions like Promotion of Basic Education, The Charter of Civil Rigths and Disability Welfare Act, which make your grandstanding nonsense. The rest is bumper-sticker material. These resolutions would've been pointed out to you during a drafting period, if that had happened.

[Fauxia]

DEFINES disabled, for the purposes of this resolution, as having a physical or mental condition that limits movements, senses, or activities

This definition is too narrow, and we believe it excludes many developmental disabilities. Therefore, we're opposed.

Should you attempt to rewrite this proposal, we strongly suggest that you at least skim real-world legislation for inspiration:

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title20/chapter33&edition=prelim

"This is correct. We do not support this bill for this and multiple other reasons."

[Luinil]

Honestly I think the proposition in and of itself is good. It is sensible, beneficial and dare I say it is just. The problem I find is that this is not really a WA matter. For someone who takes an EU principle of subsidiarity view it makes little sense that smothing that can be done on a national level is taken to a WA level.

Again I think it is a good policy but it should be enacted on a national level because it is not really an international issue. (Like say weapons sales, environment or trade laws.)

[Nerodanus]

Against,

There are no disabled people in Nerodanus.

[United Areas of Conservatives]

DEFINES disabled, for the purposes of this resolution, as having a physical or mental condition that limits movements, senses, or activities,

This is why most prospective WA authors take things to drafting. This is just too vague. I recommend you take this to the drafting forums after this is done.

[Taralf]

"As has been pointed out by several other esteemed member nations, this proposal was sprung on the chamber with no possibility of critique or clarification before the vote. It clearly shows: several matters of considerable substance and relevance are not defined at all or are defined in a very vague or, conversely, narrow way; several parts of the proposal as well as discussion in its defense are mostly exaggeration and hyperbole aiming at producing knee-jerk acceptance without further logical thought, a direction we cannot, in good conscience, support this body taking. Further, previous resolutions on this matter exist and we fail to see how this proposal in its current, unclear and ill-defined state, adds anything meaningful to proposals already adopted by the General Assembly. We applaud the intentions behind this proposal, but cannot support it in its current form. As such, the Republic of Taralf votes against this proposal."

[Thyerata]

Ambassador, it is a matter of basic courtesy, convention and protocol that any proposed Resolution should first be presented here as a draft. Failure to do so amounts to an insult to our common intellect and intelligence, and we will be voting against.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The same arguments continue to reverberate but miss out on the key fact that we have yet to have a resolution addressing this segment of society pass the halls of the WA.

You keep saying this, but we do, it's in section 2 of A Promotion of Basic Education.

[Covenstone]

...noting the disenfranchisement of disabled students has the potential to cause extreme [...] economic harm [...] through the deterioration or degradation of social equity, for example: [...] hindering social stability by destroying or causing a decline in the image of a common national bond, and nullifying the possible economic progression by under utilizing the cultural, industrial, and scientific capital these citizens could contribute...

Affirmative action measures, like this resolution, replace job allocation based on merit/capabilities with arbitrary regulations based on social strata. That's a much higher economic damage than the under-usage of an already tiny industrial capital from disabled citizens.

Not to mention it is outright antidemocratic when applied to political office, restricting the pool of candidates for the popular vote.

No support, I'm afraid.

See, it's comments like this that make me want to change my vote and vote yes, despite the fact it is a god-awful proposal that should never be allowed to pass.

This is not an affirmative action proposal. It is not asking for disabled students to be given extra opportunities, or to be given places in university that they don't deserve. They aren't being let in with substandard grades or having no skills.

The proposal is just asking for universities to be modified to ensure that students who have trouble walking (such as those in wheelchairs, or on crutches) can get to where they are going. And students who might not be able to hear the lecturer clearly can record the lectures, or who can see the board can get the lectures printed out.

My problem with this proposal is not because it is "affirmative action", because it clearly isn't and to claim it is is misleading at best, and a lie at worst. My problem is the vague definitions, the fluffy terms and the fact it could so easily be abused by all and sundry, and that it needs major revision before being suitable for voting.

[Greifenburg]

See, it's comments like this that make me want to change my vote and vote yes, despite the fact it is a god-awful proposal that should never be allowed to pass.

This is not an affirmative action proposal. It is not asking for disabled students to be given extra opportunities, or to be given places in university that they don't deserve. They aren't being let in with substandard grades or having no skills.

The proposal is just asking for universities to be modified to ensure that students who have trouble walking (such as those in wheelchairs, or on crutches) can get to where they are going. And students who might not be able to hear the lecturer clearly can record the lectures, or who can see the board can get the lectures printed out.

My problem with this proposal is not because it is "affirmative action", because it clearly isn't and to claim it is is misleading at best, and a lie at worst. My problem is the vague definitions, the fluffy terms and the fact it could so easily be abused by all and sundry, and that it needs major revision before being suitable for voting.

While we agree that it isn't about affirmative action, we disagree that it is just about universities being modified. This resolution targets rather all schools. While the thought is applaudable, and we gladly provide schools for those with special needs across the country, the upgrade of every single school (including the small village school that buys new equipement as needed and doesn't tend to stockpile on everything) for every possible disability is absolutely unrealistic, and in the case of the small village school that might never even encounter some of them, an unnecessary strain on their budget, that should be otherwise used.

[Araraukar]

OOC: After taking a closer look at the definition used here, it looks like many mental disorders that are not disabilities, would also be included, such as anxiety or depression, not to mention the various phobias and even allergies that make people unable or unwilling to partake all sorts of activities. A friend of mine gets a terrible rash from chlorinated water, so she couldn't partake school swimming lessons (which are normally mandatory). I'm fairly sure she would be very affronted if she was called "disabled" because of a simple chemical allergy.

[Tretrid]

Powell walks in the room and says, "Well, I haven't been here for a while. What insanity is going on in these halls?"

When she reads the proposal, she says, "As highlighted before, there was no procedure for drafting this, to fix any issues with the draft. Dismissing such concerns with an ad hominem is fallacious, and does not address such concerns. There are also many issues with the definitions, which I believe my colleagues have discussed before. How would you address that? Because of this, I vote AGAINST."

[Excidium Planetis]

The same arguments continue to reverberate but miss out on the key fact that we have yet to have a resolution addressing this segment of society pass the halls of the WA.

"Utter nonsense!" Blackbourne exclaims. "I present you with General Assembly Resolution Eighty, 'A Promotion of Basic Education':

1. Declares that all citizens have the right to be educated, and thus be provided with the following capabilities through some sort of variation of edification:
• Comprehensive literacy skills and fluency in the official or popular language(s) of their nation;
• An understanding of basic arithmetical operations, geometrics and fundamental mathematics;
• Cognizance of financial mathematics and concepts, currency and economics that is appropriate to the economy of their nation;
• A familiarity with their nation’s governmental policies, processes, civics, rights and freedoms;
• A fair and impartial recollection of historical national and international events, politics and society;
• An accurate understanding of ecological life, nature and the environment;
• A fair and impartial familiarity to common cultural customs, beliefs and ideologies in their nation of residence and abroad;
• Knowledge of the geographical and/or astrographical characteristics of their surrounding environment, including natural, political and demographical characteristics;

2. Further requires that member nations attempt to provide citizens of a nation the aforementioned education in the fullest possible form for any citizen that is mentally incapable, neurologically undeveloped, or otherwise incapable of learning or retaining within reason the fundamental aspects to a basic education;

"And furthermore, under General Assembly Resolution Thirty-Five, 'The Charter of Civil Rights':

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

"Let it be known by all ambassadors present that the World Assembly has indeed already made efforts to include those with disability in education. It is indeed rather ridiculous to believe that this Assembly has existed for so many years without doing so."

Prior to this, these people had NO voice arguing for equality and opportunity, NO acknowledgement of their conditions or anything set forth to rectify it, and NO true opportunity to resolve their disenfranchisement!

"Shouting out falsehoods is not a generally good idea when trying to win over rational opponents."

[North Arkana]

If we are to be correct, under this resolution's extremely definition of "disabled", the mere fact that one of this delegation needs glasses would define them a "disabled". This definition is so vague, in fact, that I was to trip and fall on my way out of this room and bang up my knee, causing pain but no permanent injury, then I would be defined as disabled and eligible for these "disability" benefits so long as I am subjectively in too much pain to want to put weight on my leg.

Are you to imply, that nations must also establish some kind special review board to decide who is actually disabled, or are we simply supposed to take all claims of disability at face value?