Advertisement
by Bananaistan » Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:22 pm
by Free Las Pinas » Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:00 pm
Bananaistan wrote:snip
1a only acts on people. It could be made applicable to the state and organisations by deleting “permit the populace to”.
Amend or annul national laws, and condemn or criminalize norms and procedures, which empower discrimination on the grounds of disability;
1b. I’d mention affordable access here as well.
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;
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.
Ensure, in law and in practice, that no qualified applicants and employees for any job are subjected to different terms and conditions, privileges, incentives, or allowances in their occupation due to being disabled;
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?
Guarantee, to all people with disabilities, the right to know whatever meticulous details pertaining to their disability that their health care provider does, and ensure that health care providers explain their patient's medical condition to the best of their ability;
1e Well integrated with what?
by Honeydewistania » 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;
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Free Las Pinas » Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:15 pm
by Kenmoria » 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?
by Free Las Pinas » 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.)
by Imperium Anglorum » 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
Provide appropriate financial assistance to all economically-marginalized students with disabilities who genuinely seek to pursue tertiary education;
a person with a disability is one who has been declared so ... by a health care provider
Requires [members to] Amend or annul national laws, and condemn or criminalize norms and procedures, which empower discrimination on the grounds of disability;
by Refuge Isle » Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:05 pm
by Kenmoria » 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".
by Cretox State » 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.)
by Free Las Pinas » Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:16 pm
by Kenmoria » Tue Dec 01, 2020 12:21 am
by Refuge Isle » 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.
by Tinhampton » Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:55 am
by South St Maarten » Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:22 am
by Free Las Pinas » Sun Dec 27, 2020 9:53 pm
by Tinhampton » Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:08 pm
by Free Las Pinas » 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)?
by Tinhampton » Tue Dec 29, 2020 6:12 am
by Free Las Pinas » Wed Dec 30, 2020 9:00 pm
by Honeydewistania » Fri Jan 01, 2021 11:29 pm
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Free Las Pinas » Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:38 am
by Vivolkha » Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:03 am
c. guarantee, to people with disabilities, the right to know details about their own medical condition, granted their doctor has the resources to;
by Free Las Pinas » 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.
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;
by Vivolkha » 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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement