[PASSED] Disability Welfare Act

[Sanctaria]

Delegates, please go here to approve!

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Disability Welfare Act
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Sanctaria

The General Assembly,

RE-AFFIRMING its belief that there exist various human rights, including those to shelter, food, and education,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many achieve the means to enjoy those rights through work and employment,

SADDENED by the reality that there often exists the unreconcilable impediment to work and employment that is disability,

BELIEVING that this threatens the ability for some to achieve their aforementioned rights,

CONVINCED that nations should help those who are at a disadvantage due to a disability,

Hereby

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, a disability as an arduous, constant and debilitating physical or mental affliction which renders one incapable and ineffectual in terms of work and employment;

DIRECTS nations to create a system, or systems, of welfare to assist those who are disabled;

DEMANDS that those who have been rendered disabled, as defined by this resolution, be granted adequate benefit(s) from or by the aforementioned system(s) which equate to, at the least, the minimum amount required to attain the same level of well-being and dignity a working, able person would otherwise be entitled to enjoy;

REQUIRES nations to, when determining what constitutes adequate benefits based on the above, take into account the average cost of day-to-day expenses including, but not limited to, food, shelter, healthcare for the disabled, and education;

RECOMMENDS that nations, unless already achieved, build on their system(s) of welfare to include in its remit those who in need yet are not disabled;

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.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Enabling the Disabled
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Sanctaria

The General Assembly,

RE-AFFIRMING its belief that there exist various human rights, including those to shelter, food, and education,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many achieve the means to enjoy those rights through work and employment,

SADDENED by the reality that there often exists the unreconcilable impediment to work and employment that is disability,

BELIEVING that this threatens the ability for some to achieve their aforementioned rights,

CONVINCED that nations should help those who are at a disadvantage due to a disability,

Hereby

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, a disability as an arduous, constant and debilitating physical or mental affliction which renders one incapable and ineffectual in terms of work and employment;

DIRECTS nations to create a system, or systems, of welfare to assist those who are disabled, if nations have not already done so;

DEMANDS that those who have been rendered disabled, as defined by this resolution, be granted adequate benefit(s) from or by the aforementioned system(s) which equate to, at the least, the minimum level of compensation that full time employees in the same nation are legally entitled to;

RECOMMENDS that nation build on their system(s) of welfare to include in its remit those who in need yet are not disabled;

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.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Enabling the Disabled
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Sanctaria

The General Assembly,

RE-AFFIRMING its belief that there exist various human rights, including those to shelter, food, and education,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many achieve the means to enjoy those rights through work and employment,

SADDENED by the reality that there often exists the unreconcilable impediment to work and employment that is disability,

BELIEVING that this threatens the ability for some to achieve their aforementioned rights,

CONVINCED that nations should help those who cannot help themselves,

Hereby

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, a disability as a long-term debilitating physical or mental illness which renders one unable to work or be in employment;

DIRECTS nations to create a system, or systems, of welfare to assist those who are disabled, if nations have not already done so;

DEMANDS that those who have been rendered disabled, as defined by this resolution, be granted adequate benefit(s) from or by the aforementioned system(s) which enable them to reach a standard of living in their nation where they can achieve the means to comfortably enjoy their human rights;

RECOMMENDS that nations, unless already achieved, build on their system(s) of welfare to include in its remit those who in need yet are not disabled;

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.

Right, so it's pretty late/early (6am and I haven't slept yet), and it's a pretty rough draft. The language is clumsy in places and it could still do with a good bit of work. Definitely not happy with it yet so constructive criticism is very much welcomed.

As an aside, of sorts, I'm still not sure where I want to head with this. While I definitely want to see legislation in this regard, I don't want to see a high amount of micromanagement. I'm confident that we can legislate the need for nations to provide benefits to the disabled without getting into minute details.

[Sionis Prioratus]

OOC: Another one for the mothership! It's late here as well, and I am going to get some sleep. Keep up the good work!

[Sanctaria]

Comments would be appreciated, Ambassadors, this is an important topic.

[Sanctaria]

Added a new line to the preamble, in blue.

Still concerned about the clumsiness of the language in places but I think the spirit of the piece does all that's needed; ensures those who need disability benefits have a right and a mechanism to receive them. Everything else can be left up to the nation itself.

Any thoughts? At all?

[Soviet Canuckistan]

I support this act.

[Sionis Prioratus]

The General Assembly,

RE-AFFIRMING its belief that there exist various human rights, including those to shelter, food, and education,

I like it, and that is probably a personal style thing, but I would add some language to focus on the progress the WA has been doing on those issues. If I may give pieces of my own resolutions:

[S]elf-evident sentient rights, such as the right to happiness, the right to avoid harm to oneself and one's children, the right to self-determination, and the right to pursue a second chance in life,

DECLARING AS OBVIOUS that no sapient being’s health should be held hostage to any nation’s ideology, notwithstanding the sacred notion that nations of all stripes are equal before this World Assembly,

HAILING its work in ensuring ever-greater social justice for all and a better life for workers and their families;

CONSIDERING that there is much yet to be done; that there are not enough international guarantees under which a basis of security and prosperity can be established;

SEEKING to assist people in dire situations so they can insert themselves again in the workforce as soon as possible instead of being a permanent burden for all society;

---

ACKNOWLEDGING that many achieve the means to enjoy those rights through work and employment,

SADDENED by the reality that there often exists the unreconcilable impediment to work and employment that is disability,

BELIEVING that this threatens the ability for some to achieve their aforementioned rights,

Okay.

CONVINCED that nations should help those who cannot help themselves,

I know what you mean, but some people "cannot help themselves" to do a lot of bad things like binge-drinking, wife-beating, child-raping... if you know what I mean. I would hate to see this derailed because of ambiguous language.

Hereby

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, a disability as a long-term debilitating physical or mental illness which renders one unable to work or be in employment;

Devil is in the details, and this is where the hard work comes. What is "long-term"? What is "unable to work"? What if a nation says that a triple amputee is quite able to do physical labor at at rock quarry, thank you very much? Or even, "illness"? Many nations might very well officially see things like depression as a moral failing, and/or schizophrenia as a demonic possession.

DIRECTS nations to create a system, or systems, of welfare to assist those who are disabled, if nations have not already done so;

Too vague. What constitutes "assist[ance]"? Can a nation give to a disabled person half a bread per week and say (correctly) it is following the Resolution's mandates?

DEMANDS that those who have been rendered disabled, as defined by this resolution, be granted adequate benefit(s) from or by the aforementioned system(s) which enable them to reach a standard of living in their nation where they can achieve the means to comfortably enjoy their human rights;

What are "their human rights"? If there are not many national human rights inside any nation (if at all), besides what international law mandates them to do, then this could leave the disabled in a worse shape than before.

RECOMMENDS that nations, unless already achieved, build on their system(s) of welfare to include in its remit those who in need yet are not disabled;

I may be mistaken, but I am worried this would be a blocker to any and all future welfare mandates.

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.

Okay in itself, but would this not deserve an entire resolution on its own merits? Since the current WA's Realpolitik is to not "overreach"...

Hoping to have been of help,

Yours,

[Sanctaria]

CONVINCED that nations should help those who cannot help themselves,

I know what you mean, but some people "cannot help themselves" to do a lot of bad things like binge-drinking, wife-beating, child-raping... if you know what I mean. I would hate to see this derailed because of ambiguous language.

I can reword that easily enough to be more welfare centric. Perhaps something along the lines of

CONVINCED that nations should help those who are at a disadvantage due to a disability,

?

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, a disability as a long-term debilitating physical or mental illness which renders one unable to work or be in employment;

Devil is in the details, and this is where the hard work comes. What is "long-term"? What is "unable to work"? What if a nation says that a triple amputee is quite able to do physical labor at at rock quarry, thank you very much? Or even, "illness"? Many nations might very well officially see things like depression as a moral failing, and/or schizophrenia as a demonic possession.

While I'm sure I can change the wording of "long-term" and "unable to work" so as to tighten any loopholes, I'm not sure that I'd be comfortable defining what exactly constitutes an illness. Such a thing would fall out of the scope of this resolution. What constitutes an illness that should receive disability benefits I may be able to get away with, but I think that labouring away on one particular word isn't particularly helpful.

That being said, I propose the following as a replacement:

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, a disability as an arduous, constant and debilitating physical or mental affliction which renders one incapable and ineffectual in terms of work and employment;

DIRECTS nations to create a system, or systems, of welfare to assist those who are disabled, if nations have not already done so;

Too vague. What consitutes "assistance"? Can a nation give to a disabled person half a bread per week and say (correctly) it is following the Resolution's mandates?

DEMANDS that those who have been rendered disabled, as defined by this resolution, be granted adequate benefit(s) from or by the aforementioned system(s) which enable them to reach a standard of living in their nation where they can achieve the means to comfortably enjoy their human rights;

What are "their human rights"? If there are not many national human rights inside any nation (if at all), besides what international law mandates them to do, then this could leave the disabled in a worse shape than in the before.

I'll take both issues above together.

If you take the resolution clause by clause, the Ambassador would have a point. However, taken as a whole, the Ambassador would see that any assistance given by the welfare system created must be adequate enough to allow one who is disabled reach a standard of living in their nation where, like any able person, they would be able to comfortably enjoy any rights gifted to them wither by international law or laws of their own nation.

Which I think answers your second point. There are enough international laws which, taken with this, would ensure that those who are disabled cannot be put on unequal footing. Regardless of any extra human rights their resident nation may bequeath on its citizens, extant international law ensure they won't be worse off.

I'll take another look at tightening both clauses however. If only to close off any potential loopholes. I am wary of this proposal micromanaging a nation's welfare system which is not something I would like to see done.

RECOMMENDS that nations, unless already achieved, build on their system(s) of welfare to include in its remit those who in need yet are not disabled;

I may be mistaken, but I am worried this would be a blocker to any and all future welfare mandates.

I'm not sure as to how that would be a blocker given that it's only a recommending clause; any further legislation on the subject would be seen as building on it, if even that, rather than running foul of the possibility of duplication or the like.

That being said, I am open to correction on the matter.

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.

Okay in itself, but would this not deserve an entire resolution on its own merits? Since the current WA's Realpolitik is to not "overreach"...

Again I don't see why a clause recommending or encouraging something should be seen as overreaching.

Looking forward to your responses,

Regards etc.,

[Great Nepal]

Against.
Everyone has equal rights, just cos you have a leg missing doesn't make you superior, thereby doesn't grant you any extra rights.

[Sanctaria]

Against.
Everyone has equal rights, just cos you have a leg missing doesn't make you superior, thereby doesn't grant you any extra rights.

I'm not sure the Ambassador has quite grasped the idea of why disability benefits either do or should exist.

Everyone is theoretically equal. However, I would contend that someone with one less leg is not equal to someone who has the adequate amount of legs. No one said that those who are disabled are superior; indeed it's often, sadly, the opposite in that they are treated as inferior.

Disability benefits exist to help those who are less equal to become equal through various assistances. Assistances which this current draft and proposal leaves up to each national government to determine, provided that they enable those who are disabled get on equal footing with everyone else.

[Alzadia]

Has there been a rash of discrimination vs. the disabled within our nations? Alzadia's simply curious to see exactly what spurred Sanctaria to propose this legislation.

[Sanctaria]

Has there been a rash of discrimination vs. the disabled within our nations? Alzadia's simply curious to see exactly what spurred Sanctaria to propose this legislation.

This proposal comes about as a joint effort between many nations to ensure that there are more than just one resolution on the books to deal with social injustice which, sadly, exist in many nations.

Up until now there has usually been a single resolution to fix many problems, for example parental leave, benefit fraud and disability benefits, which many Ambassadors agree is a fault and that there should be separate resolutions dealing with each of these issues.

With the imminent rejection of the SAA and the past repeal of the SiDT, many Ambassadors, including myself, are concerned that the ability to attain disability benefits is no longer protected by international law.

Hope this helps.

Regards etc.,

[Great Nepal]

Against.
Everyone has equal rights, just cos you have a leg missing doesn't make you superior, thereby doesn't grant you any extra rights.

I'm not sure the Ambassador has quite grasped the idea of why disability benefits either do or should exist.

Everyone is theoretically equal. However, I would contend that someone with one less leg is not equal to someone who has the adequate amount of legs. No one said that those who are disabled are superior; indeed it's often, sadly, the opposite in that they are treated as inferior.

Disability benefits exist to help those who are less equal to become equal through various assistances. Assistances which this current draft and proposal leaves up to each national government to determine, provided that they enable those who are disabled get on equal footing with everyone else.

Except for the fact that they are equal to others.
They get equal rights as others and they also have equal responsibilities as others. If two parties have equal rights and responsibilities, guaranteed by the constitution then they are equal under eyes of law. Of course, some may find it hard to get by their day to day life but that is not a issue for the WA or national government - it is an individual problem, unless you are implying that we should make a resolution to help out every kid who isn't able to get a good grade as their competitors.
Giving one group of citizens more rights than another group of citizen is clear attack on discrimination against latter group of citizens.

[Alzadia]

Has there been a rash of discrimination vs. the disabled within our nations? Alzadia's simply curious to see exactly what spurred Sanctaria to propose this legislation.

This proposal comes about as a joint effort between many nations to ensure that there are more than just one resolution on the books to deal with social injustice which, sadly, exist in many nations.

Up until now there has usually been a single resolution to fix many problems, for example parental leave, benefit fraud and disability benefits, which many Ambassadors agree is a fault and that there should be separate resolutions dealing with each of these issues.

With the imminent rejection of the SAA and the past repeal of the SiDT, many Ambassadors, including myself, are concerned that the ability to attain disability benefits is no longer protected by international law.

Hope this helps.

Regards etc.,

It does help quite a bit, thank you. the delegation from Alzadia's not of the opinion however that our united governments need to hold the hands of those who find it hard to move around day-to-day. Perhaps individually we could make healthcare for the disabled more accessible, and do work to expand our medical technology so that our disabled do not HAVE such a hard time, as well as ensuring disability benefits are held sacrosanct within our own countries but individual day-to-day challenges are not something that requires a WA resolution.

[Sanctaria]

I'm not sure the Ambassador has quite grasped the idea of why disability benefits either do or should exist.

Everyone is theoretically equal. However, I would contend that someone with one less leg is not equal to someone who has the adequate amount of legs. No one said that those who are disabled are superior; indeed it's often, sadly, the opposite in that they are treated as inferior.

Disability benefits exist to help those who are less equal to become equal through various assistances. Assistances which this current draft and proposal leaves up to each national government to determine, provided that they enable those who are disabled get on equal footing with everyone else.

Except for the fact that they are equal to others.
They get equal rights as others and they also have equal responsibilities as others. If two parties have equal rights and responsibilities, guaranteed by the constitution then they are equal under eyes of law. Of course, some may find it hard to get by their day to day life but that is not a issue for the WA or national government - it is an individual problem, unless you are implying that we should make a resolution to help out every kid who isn't able to get a good grade as their competitors.
Giving one group of citizens more rights than another group of citizen is clear attack on discrimination against latter group of citizens.

Firstly I question what constitution the Ambassador is referring to. If he's referring to his national constitution than the fact that it fails to address the reality that those who are disabled are unequal to those who are not then it just furthers my belief that this Assembly should do something about it.

I don't question that people have equal rights and equal responsibilities, I am sure that they do. What is however the case in every nation, and which this Ambassador fails to realise, is that having a disability is a hindrance to one's rights and an obstacle to carrying out one's responsibilities. It is there where the national government must step in with benefits, the right of access to which is protected by international law.

This proposal comes about as a joint effort between many nations to ensure that there are more than just one resolution on the books to deal with social injustice which, sadly, exist in many nations.

Up until now there has usually been a single resolution to fix many problems, for example parental leave, benefit fraud and disability benefits, which many Ambassadors agree is a fault and that there should be separate resolutions dealing with each of these issues.

With the imminent rejection of the SAA and the past repeal of the SiDT, many Ambassadors, including myself, are concerned that the ability to attain disability benefits is no longer protected by international law.

Hope this helps.

Regards etc.,

It does help quite a bit, thank you. the delegation from Alzadia's not of the opinion however that our united governments need to hold the hands of those who find it hard to move around day-to-day. Perhaps individually we could make healthcare for the disabled more accessible, and do work to expand our medical technology so that our disabled do not HAVE such a hard time, as well as ensuring disability benefits are held sacrosanct within our own countries but individual day-to-day challenges are not something that requires a WA resolution.

Would the Ambassador like to point out where I ask nations to, as he puts it, "hold the hands" of those who are disabled? Neither are we legislating the governments be there for day to day challenges like, for example, crossing the road, dressing oneself, bathing oneself etc.

As it stands, the proposal ensures that nations have a system of welfare for those who are disabled, and that those who are disabled have a right and ability to access said system of welfare. No more, no less. If the Ambassador truly considers disability benefits to be sacrosanct, he would support this proposal.

[Speyern]

Speyern's problem with this resolution is that the government of Speyern exists for only two reasons, to defend and maintain the peace and public order in our nation, and believes that charities can provide welfare and help the disabled in a much more effective, long term, and cost-efficient way than the government possibly can, and also points out that so far, nations who attempt serious welfare programs are often facing serious debt problems, which, in order to maintain their systems of welfare and entitlements that come along with welfare, must cut back in other, more vital areas such as defense, law and order, or education, which is a massive problem because education has proven throughout history to be the best and most effective means of eliminating poverty.

On top of that, what good is welfare when your government is crippled by debt, and unable to defend and maintain the sovereignty of it's nation?

[Sanctaria]

Speyern's problem with this resolution is that the government of Speyern exists for only two reasons, to defend and maintain the peace and public order in our nation, and believes that charities can provide welfare and help the disabled in a much more effective, long term, and cost-efficient way.

I have to say I'm then intrigued as to who looks after the Ambassador's fellow citizens in terms of health and education, not to mention who looks after the nation's finances and foreign affairs? Strange that this Assembly has passed many resolutions in terms of the aforementioned and still they have no presence in your nation's government. If, that is, the sole job of the government is to defend and maintain peace and public order. Intriguing.

Nevertheless, an issue you posed and an issue I must address. The proposal, as it currently stands, makes no provision that the government control any and all welfare system that may be place. This proposal ensures, however, that welfare systems exist and that those who are disabled can access it and benefit from it in such a way that they are placed on equal footing with all able people in your nation who can gain work and employment.

EDIT

You saw fit to edit you post, so I'll simply say this in response. The current proposal does not tell nations to create extensive welfare reforms that would bankrupt a country. It only states that a system in place that benefits those who are disabled must exist and that the benefits they get must be adequate enough to put them on equal footing as someone who is in employment. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Alzadia]

The delegation from Sanctaria will allow that Alzadia's hard-working Ambassadors have gotten little sleep and thus didn't read your post very clearly..

If you can make a clear and concise determination as to what constitutes 'adequate enough' in terms of the proposed welfare system, then I think Alzadia would find it easier to stand with you. By all means, Sanctaria's intentions are clearly noble and should be given credit. However the trick is hashing out the little details.

[Sanctaria]

The delegation from Sanctaria will allow that Alzadia's hard-working Ambassadors have gotten little sleep and thus didn't read your post very clearly..

If you can make a clear and concise determination as to what constitutes 'adequate enough' in terms of the proposed welfare system, then I think Alzadia would find it easier to stand with you. By all means, Sanctaria's intentions are clearly noble and should be given credit. However the trick is hashing out the little details.

Well this delegation is of the belief that when it comes to welfare, each nation should retain the majority of sovereignty in determining in what circumstances people should be given benefits and what exactly constitutes benefits. Bar stating that those who have a serious disability must receive benefits, this proposal does not tell national governments what constitutes benefits.

What this proposal does do, however, is state that benefits must be adequate enough to allow those who are disabled to achieve the means to reach the standard of living that is available to those who are in employment. If that's monetary or otherwise, it's up to the nation. As long as those who are disabled are afforded the same and equal opportunity as those in work through the benefits, then this author is happy.

[Moronist Decisions]

We are mostly in agreement with this. We would, however, point out that we would like to suggest making the last clause a "MANDATES" statement.

[edited after having read the mothership]

That said, you might want to remove it if that is found to be deserving of another resolution, which I believe SP would like to write.

[Sanctaria]

We are mostly in agreement with this. We would, however, point out that we would like to suggest making the last clause a "MANDATES" statement. And frankly, we consider the last clause to be more critical than the rest and possibly deserving of a separate resolution.

Good to have the Ambassador's support.

After some consideration I am thinking of removing it, but I would think it reckless and irresponsible of me to not have some mention of the issue. You're not the first Ambassador to express reservation about the inclusion of the clause as it deserves a resolution to itself.

Perhaps after great consultation from fellow Ambassadors a more clear outcome will be achieved.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

We are concerned the standard of comfort could be overly onerous.

[Sanctaria]

We are concerned the standard of comfort could be overly onerous.

Onerous to whom, Ambassador? I don't think this proposal enforces any burdensome charge on a nation. Enabling those who are disabled to reach the same level of living enjoyed by those who can work does not seem to be burdensome to me. And even if it were, surely it's still the right thing to do?

Would the Ambassador care to elaborate, however? We are interested in his thoughts.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

We are concerned the standard of comfort could be overly onerous.

Onerous to whom, Ambassador? I don't think this proposal enforces any burdensome charge on a nation. Enabling those who are disabled to reach the same level of living enjoyed by those who can work does not seem to be burdensome to me. And even if it were, surely it's still the right thing to do?

Would the Ambassador care to elaborate, however? We are interested in his thoughts.

The problem, of course, is that millionaires in our nation can work and can also enjoy their rights comfortably, as can labourers in coal mines. Would it be clearer to tie the minimum standard to the poverty line or WA Living Wage in some manner by mandating that the minimum amount of insurance must be equivalent to the legally-established minimum wage for full-time employees in each nation, or possibly removing the extraneous part about comfort and concentrating instead on the substance of the clause, which would leave "DEMANDS that those who have been rendered disabled, as defined by this resolution, be granted adequate benefit(s) from or by the aforementioned system(s) which enable them to reach a standard of living in their nation... [another standard]".

[Sanctaria]

Onerous to whom, Ambassador? I don't think this proposal enforces any burdensome charge on a nation. Enabling those who are disabled to reach the same level of living enjoyed by those who can work does not seem to be burdensome to me. And even if it were, surely it's still the right thing to do?

Would the Ambassador care to elaborate, however? We are interested in his thoughts.

The problem, of course, is that millionaires in our nation can work and can also enjoy their rights comfortably, as can labourers in coal mines. Would it be clearer to tie the minimum standard to the poverty line or WA Living Wage in some manner by mandating that the minimum amount of insurance must be equivalent to the legally-established minimum wage for full-time employees in each nation, or possibly removing the extraneous part about comfort and concentrating instead on the substance of the clause, which would leave "DEMANDS that those who have been rendered disabled, as defined by this resolution, be granted adequate benefit(s) from or by the aforementioned system(s) which enable them to reach a standard of living in their nation... [another standard]".

Ah I now see what the Ambassador is saying. Yes, I had thought of that and I envisioned that the benefits bring those who are unable to work due to a disability up to the same level of living as those who earn the average industrial wage, or equivalent, in their nation. I am, however, unsure as to how to work that into the resolution while being conscious of differing wage systems in nations.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Would that not be Your Excellency's task?

The LWA, in any case, flung aside those considerations.