Draft of GA Proposal "Reducing Disability Discrimination"

[Bestenfalls]

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that discrimination against the disability community is a veritable human rights issue that poses a threat to the existence of disabled individuals, their psychological health, emotional health, and economic prospects throughout the multiverse,

Conceding that endeavors were previously attempted to rectify the disadvantaged situation that the disability community faces due to prejudice since the inception of the original General Assembly,

Now yearning to achieve the ambitions of the previous General Assembly and implement meaningful measures in a succinct and streamlined fashion,

Definitions:
1. "Disability Discrimination" is prejudiced treatment against the disability community by a government, society, or private and public institutions (e.g., public schools, universities, healthcare facilities, and businesses)

2. "Maltreatment" is engaging in any form of physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, and financial abuse against another human being, with some instances including:

a. A parent attacking their child for a basic act of insubordination
b. A healthcare worker sexually assaulting a female patient in a vegetative state
c. Systematically lying to an individual and their loved ones
d. Instilling feelings of guilt into a child for perceived transgressions
e. Barring an individual from possessing a financial account (i.e., an index fund or a bank account)

3. "Independence" is being able to live uninhibited (or somewhat uninhibited), without significant outside variables controlling one's life

Stipulations:

1. States should enact laws improving the lives of their disabled citizens by shielding them from discrimination and guaranteeing their psychological, economic, and bodily autonomy;

2. People with disabilities are to be legally recognized as equal citizens in all member states;

3. Member states should institute legislation targeting abuse toward disabled people with harsh penalties, irrespective of the type of abuse;

4. Member states should expedite the creation and enactment of social and integration programs to safeguard and enforce the bodily, economic, and psychological independence of their disabled citizens

[Bonderovia]

First, no need of writing instances in def. 2.
And what measures you propose to us in stipulation 1?

[Bestenfalls]

What policies or initiatives would you recommend?

[Bonderovia]

Opinion :
1.Ramps in buildings,public transport.
2.Braille script
3.Devices for deaf and mute,etc

[Bestenfalls]

I agree. Moreover, we could add vocational rehabilitation services to the resolution, as it would address the economic obstacles and prejudice that many in the disability community contend with.

[Frismana]

This is like micromanaging nations, they can effectively do this themselves by just accepting options that would increase civil rights and accessibility

[Bestenfalls]

I thought that enacting GA resolutions within nations wasn't compulsory anymore. As such, even if this hypothetical resolution were to be approved, not every nation would implement it, knowing that they would be at or above the 80% threshold for resolution adoption, meaning that they wouldn't incur any repercussions for not enacting the resolution within their nation, especially since they could still vote on any GA resolution.

[Merethin]

I thought that enacting GA resolutions within nations wasn't compulsory anymore. As such, even if this hypothetical resolution were to be approved, not every nation would implement it, knowing that they would be at or above the 80% threshold for resolution adoption, meaning that they wouldn't incur any repercussions for not enacting the resolution within their nation, especially since they could still vote on any GA resolution.

This is not a sufficient defense. Even if not everyone will adopt your resolution, you should still make your resolution worth adopting.

People not adopting your resolution because it goes against how they specifically want to run their nation is one thing, people not adopting it because it's generally badly designed should be avoided.

General Assembly resolutions are written for a variety of different nations with different circumstances and needs. Each nation will understand best how to apply WA legislation to their own situation, and thus they should be given room to do so, instead of specifically micromanaging aspects of their affairs. I recommend reading the Daybreak statement, especially the Sovereign, Collaboration and Agencies pillars, for more insight into this.

[Bestenfalls]

How was the author of the "Eliminating Slavery and Trafficking of Persons" resolution able to convince other nations to implement it, despite slavery being legal in at least several nations?

[Merethin]

How was the author of the "Eliminating Slavery and Trafficking of Persons" resolution able to convince other nations to implement it, despite slavery being legal in at least several nations?

I think you misunderstood my point. A resolution to ban slavery/[address insert other internationally relevant issue] is fine even if some nations ICly disagree with it, provided that the resolution focuses on what the nations should do, not how they should do it.

[Bestenfalls]

What provisions would you remove from the resolution?

[Tinhampton]

I thought that enacting GA resolutions within nations wasn't compulsory anymore. As such, even if this hypothetical resolution were to be approved, not every nation would implement it, knowing that they would be at or above the 80% threshold for resolution adoption, meaning that they wouldn't incur any repercussions for not enacting the resolution within their nation, especially since they could still vote on any GA resolution.

This is not a sufficient defense. Even if not everyone will adopt your resolution, you should still make your resolution worth adopting.

People not adopting your resolution because it goes against how they specifically want to run their nation is one thing, people not adopting it because it's generally badly designed should be avoided.

General Assembly resolutions are written for a variety of different nations with different circumstances and needs. Each nation will understand best how to apply WA legislation to their own situation, and thus they should be given room to do so, instead of specifically micromanaging aspects of their affairs. I recommend reading the Daybreak statement, especially the Sovereign, Collaboration and Agencies pillars, for more insight into this.

How was the author of the "Eliminating Slavery and Trafficking of Persons" resolution able to convince other nations to implement it, despite slavery being legal in at least several nations?

I think you misunderstood my point. A resolution to ban slavery/[address insert other internationally relevant issue] is fine even if some nations ICly disagree with it, provided that the resolution focuses on what the nations should do, not how they should do it.

As written, this resolution is not overbearing. In fact, I would argue that it is functionally insufficient! It defines "disability discrimination" and "maltreatment" without ever using those words again, introduces exactly one mandate ("People with disabilities are to be legally recognized as equal citizens in all member states"), encourages member states to take action on discrimination and abuse of disabled people (I personally think an omnibus anti-discrimination law would be more worthwhile), and also encourages states to take action - the nature of which you'll note is also never defined - to ensure that their disabled citizens can live with independence.

Even if I were to strawman this proposal and say that it required member states to take immediate measures to ensure that disabled people face no disadvantage in any sphere of life imaginable, on pain of their government being immediately overthrown by the World Assembly Defence and Security Forces, then that would still not invalidate the realities of Adoption. Right now, the 75% Adoption threshold which every nation must meet in order to vote on or approve proposals requires adopting 12 of the 15 standing resolutions. By the time GA#120 passes (for argument's sake), that threshold will in practice be met by adopting 75 of the 100 standing resolutions. Of course, not every resolution now binds every member state - Daybreak is the only one to bind more than 70% of them! - but as more and more resolutions pass, so more breathing space is opened for a plethora of resolutions about any number of topics.

Take, for example, business regulation. Suppose we have 60 standing resolutions, so you must adopt 45 of them to unlock voting rights. One big, overbearing resolution about how member states should conduct every aspect of regulation would move the minimum Adoption threshold to 46/61 and undoubtedly be unpopular. Four resolutions - one about reducing barriers to entry, one about bankruptcy procedures, one about international regulation of qualifications, and one deregulating supermarket opening hours - would bring the threshold to 48/64; that is to say, though you may not agree to all of the resolutions (or indeed vehemently disagree with some of them), now you only have to adopt three-quarters of the package, as opposed to all of it. Duplication and Contradiction are no longer rules, either, so nothing is stopping you writing a rival resolution explicitly permitting regulation of Sunday opening hours or a supplementary resolution to clarify the minimum standards that must be met by people working in regulated professions.

The freedom that comes with the choice to Adopt whatever resolutions you desire is built into the Adoption process itself. The WA is now a more enabling environment to pass a diversity of resolutions about a diversity of subjects, safe in the knowledge that member states will be able to Adopt those that best meet their needs, and not just a place where a few overarching, broad-stroke resolutions about a handful of topics get to exist - though disability rights are, ironically, one of the issues that I would genuinely like an overarching resolution or two about!

[Bestenfalls]

Would you be willing to help me co-author it, if you're willing to tell me what specific mandates I should incorporate, along with the other stipulations? For instance, what actions should be taken to improve the living situations of the disability community without infringing upon the national sovereignty of other nations?

[Untecna]

I actually think both points are rather accurate. This proposal does little to actually advance the rights of disabled persons while mandating that member-states engage in certain domestic legislative activities. In a sense, it does functionally little and overbears upon member states.

I'll move through the proposal itself in points.

Acknowledging that discrimination against the disability community is a veritable human rights issue that poses a threat to the existence of disabled individuals, their psychological health, emotional health, and economic prospects throughout the multiverse,

Conceding that endeavors were previously attempted to rectify the disadvantaged situation that the disability community faces due to prejudice since the inception of the original General Assembly,

Now yearning to achieve the ambitions of the previous General Assembly and implement meaningful measures in a succinct and streamlined fashion,

Your preamble starts strong but then falls off a cliff. Ideally, you are justifying the international issue to be solved in the preamble. You make some progress toward that in the first line, but then focus on the LGA. I would suggest making a more present case for this topic to be addressed.

"Disability Discrimination" is prejudiced treatment against the disability community by a government, society, or private and public institutions (e.g., public schools, universities, healthcare facilities, and businesses)

"Disability Discrimination" is not a proper noun, and should not have both parts be capitalized ("disability" may be because it starts the sentence). I would also change the language to say that it is prejudice against disabled persons, as that flows better. The examples of institutions are functionally unnecessary.

"Maltreatment" is engaging in any form of physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, and financial abuse against another human being, with some instances including:

"Person" instead of "human being"; examples that follow are also unnecessary. The definition suffices; adding examples below it may only serve to confuse people about what can be covered.

3. "Independence" is being able to live uninhibited (or somewhat uninhibited), without significant outside variables controlling one's life

Unnecessary definition. A reasonable person should be able to intuit what independence means.

1. States should enact laws improving the lives of their disabled citizens by shielding them from discrimination and guaranteeing their psychological, economic, and bodily autonomy;

Mandating member-states to engage in legislative activities is not the role of the GA. You would be better off stipulating the guarantee of rights through the WA, like:

2. People with disabilities are to be legally recognized as equal citizens in all member states;

This is actually a good example of what I just said. Maybe not written as well as it could be, but the intent is there.

3. Member states should institute legislation targeting abuse toward disabled people with harsh penalties, irrespective of the type of abuse;

Same as before. Mandating legislative activity is not the job of the GA.

4. Member states should expedite the creation and enactment of social and integration programs to safeguard and enforce the bodily, economic, and psychological independence of their disabled citizens

This is vague. What exactly is this for, and why is it necessary?

[Tinhampton]

Would you be willing to help me co-author it, if you're willing to tell me what specific mandates I should incorporate, along with the other stipulations? For instance, what actions should be taken to improve the living situations of the disability community without infringing upon the national sovereignty of other nations?

I would like to turn the line of questioning back on you! Right now, this draft is simple enough, as a prohibition of disability discrimination. Do you intend to keep the focus purely on anti-discrimination, or would you like to expand your proposal to discuss in greater depth how an enabling environment for disabled people can be created? (Please do not cite me as a co-author yet: I don't have anything against you, quite the contrary; I'm currently just trying to gauge what you'd like out of this proposal rather than actively reshaping its contents.)

I'd also encourage you to look over and respond to Untecna's feedback, above. I don't agree with every single word he's written, but he is very much coming from the same place of trying to clarify what this proposal actually does or should be doing.

[Bestenfalls]

Expanding the resolution to encompass the creation and fostering of an enabling environment for disabled people wouldn't be a bad idea, especially considering that the technology in our world is rapidly evolving, which is an advantage for disabled people, as these newfangled technologies could potentially expand their life expectancies, ensure their autonomy, and grant them the capacity to improve their standing in life, all of which would guarantee a world wherein able-bodied and disabled people can coexist equally (or at least somewhat closer to equality). Do you agree with my proposal?

[Florida-Georgia]

I personally am FOR this proposal. There are a couple things you can obviously work on, but otherwise should be good.

[Bestenfalls]

If you were to be a co-author, would you be willing to incorporate any amendments to the resolution?