[PASSED] Repeal "Rights of the Disabled Act"

[Frisbeeteria]

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"

The World Assembly,

Recognising the need for a formal resolution on the procedures to protect the mentally disabled,
Understanding that there are multiple levels of of Mental Disability
Therefore Defining,for the purposes of this act, a Mentally Disabled person to be a sapient individual, above the age of majority, whose sapience has been reduced to the point where any two or more of the following are significantly reduced:
i.
The ability to understand their rights

ii.
Their ability to defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen in their nation

iii.
Their ability to exercise their rights

iv.
Their ability to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety


Hereby Mandates that in necessary cases, including but not limited to; legal matters, court matters, and medical consent, a limited power of attorney be transferred to a Responsible Adult.
Defines a Responsible Adult as one of the following
i.
A preferred Responsible Adult, nominated by the person before they become disabled, will be the first person requested to become the Responsible Adult, but only if they can prove that they have no conflict of interest

ii.
A member of the Disabled Person's family, who can legally establish that they have no conflict of interests

iii.
In lieu of a suitable candidate, a representative, independent of the national government, must be selected, who must also pass a test of conflict of interest.


Mandates that the said Responsible Adult be monitored on a regular basis to ensure that no conflict of interest develops
Restricts the power of Attorney given to the Responsible Adult to the least possible in the circumstances
Urges the states to use this legislation as a matter of last resort, and to consider all alternatives before transferring a persons authority to another.
Urges the states using this legislation to work towards a position whereby a Disabled Person's authority is returned to them at the earliest possible juncture
Mandates the creation of a commission to monitor states for abuse of this legislation

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

[The Dourian Embassy]

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.

[Mosktopia]

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!

[Bears Armed]

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?"

[Mosktopia]

"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.

[Wheeled States of Bifid]

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.

[Mosktopia]

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.

[Wheeled States of Bifid]

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.

[Linux and the X]

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.)

[Arnor and Gondor-]

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.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

Technically, you're both right. The law does exactly what the letter of the law says, true, and member states are required to comply with it. However, when it comes to those unclear terms, potential loopholes, or degrees of regulation, member states are given a lot of leeway.

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.

[Mosktopia]

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.

[Separatist Peoples]

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!

[Astrolinium]

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

[Mosktopia]

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.

[Araraukar]

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

[Mosktopia]

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

Good catch.

[The Emerald Legion]

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

[Astrolinium]

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.

[Mosktopia]

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).

[The Dark Star Republic]

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.

[Astrolinium]

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.

[Mosktopia]

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.

[Astrolinium]

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.

[Blindfolded]

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