UN ADOPTS DISABILITY CONVENTION

user ballots

political :

UN ADOPTS DISABILITY CONVENTION


[+] serious ballot by herzog
created Wed Dec 13, 06

The United Nations General Assembly has unanimously adopted a treaty on the rights of disabled people.

The text of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was agreed by a UN committee in August.

Countries that ratify it will have to introduce laws ensuring that disabled people are treated fairly.

The treaty will enter into force once it has been ratified by 20 countries. It is thought that the world's disabled population is 650m.

It will now be up to the 192 member states of the UN to ratify it and to begin putting it into practice.

The treaty will be signed by the European Union as a legal entity - a first in the field of human rights.

Fastest legislation?

The convention is the most rapidly negotiated human rights treaty in the history of international law - as well as the first such treaty in the 21st Century, said UN Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown.

"Too often, those living with disabilities have been seen as objects of embarrassment, and at best, of condescending pity and charity," Mr Malloch Brown said.

"On paper they have enjoyed the same rights as others. In real life, they have often been relegated to the margins and denied the opportunities that others take for granted."

The convention sets out in detail the rights of disabled people. It covers civil and political rights, accessibility, participation and inclusion, education, health, employment and social protection.

The treaty also recognises that attitudes need to change if disabled people are to achieve equality.

Countries that adopt the treaty will have to get rid of laws, customs and practices that discriminate against disabled people.

An optional protocol to the treaty will give groups and individuals the right to petition the Committee on Rights of Persons with Disabilities once they have exhausted all avenues within their own country.

A committee of independent experts will receive reports from states that have ratified the convention on the progress made in meeting their obligations.

The convention will be opened for signature and ratification in March 2007.

- - - - - - - - -- -

Do you think the sudanese are happy that while the UN will do absolutely nothing to stop their genocide, they will fight to death to ensure that the concentration camps they are forced in to are wheelchair accessible?

Yes, this will benefit them immensely
No, they'd probably prefer the UN did something about the genocide instead
Comment


Ballot #106799 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

show your vote with comment?

v 1.5 © BESTANDWORST.COM
smile bank:









similiar ballots:
47799. The Klan Convention/GOP Convention is scheduled to take place in NYC, will you being watching or will you be in NYC with your sheet and pointed hat?
112519. If you had to choose a disability to live with, what would it be?
89292. If liberalism is a mental disorder, does that mean that conservatism is a learning disability?
112864. Have you ever gone to a convention just for the souvenirs
114245. Where should we have our first annual B&W Convention?
114247. IF we had a B&W Convention who would the HELLRAISERS be?
48763. How did this all come to be: The GOP Convention is being held in Liberal NYC!
105940. Which of these nations have not signed the convention against genocide?
114246. IF we had a B&W Convention, WHO would be the BIGGEST Hell-Raiser?
125315. What do you guess will most likely happen at the Dem. Party Convention


COMMENTS:
Voted : No, they'd probably prefer the UN did something about the genocide instead
I think that for these people, and indeed hundreds of millions of others, stopping genocide, famine, and war would be a more worthy goal for the UN to dedicate it's energies to.
by herzog on Wed Dec 13, 06 6:58pm [+]

Voted : No, they'd probably prefer the UN did something about the genocide instead
To be honest I have no problem with rights for the disabled and think the UN is right on this one. With that said the UN is in my opinion utterly useless as a whole.
by lowerclassbrats on Wed Dec 13, 06 7:04pm [+]

Voted : No, they'd probably prefer the UN did something about the genocide instead
Obviously ending genocide is the immediate pressing need. However, this isn't an "either/or" option. A competent organization would do both. The phrase "Competent and the UN" is an oxymoron. They aren't using "concentration camps" in Darfur either. Its more along the lines of enter a village, destroy it, rape the women and kill everyone there.
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Wed Dec 13, 06 9:02pm [+]

The United Nations Security Council needs to be reformed. Like many of our more conservative Americans, it appears to be stuck in 1945 -- save for the removal of the USSR and the entrance of Russia and the People's Republic of China.
The one-veto power of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council is even more ridiculous than not granting other nations like Japan permanent seats in the council. You could get Britain, France, Russia, and the United States on board to intervene in Sudan (not to mention the majority of the non-permanent members of the Security Council), and China says: "No, I don't think we'll be doing that." Back to square 1.
by Applerod on Wed Dec 13, 06 9:38pm [+]

What's the connection?
by skylab on Wed Dec 13, 06 9:38pm [+]

^ The point I was making is that the UN is capable of moving with great speed on meaningless gestures such as this (it's not a bad idea in theory, but it won't be enforced, so it's just paper) but when it comes to actually upholding their ideals they drag their feet (the genocide in Sudan, among other atrocities, has been going on for years and has yet to recieve even a sternly worded letter from the UN).
by herzog on Wed Dec 13, 06 9:56pm [+]

To me this is about like the city council speedily churning out an ordinance asking people to stop littering that isn't binding, as the city burns to the ground.
by herzog on Wed Dec 13, 06 9:58pm [+]

Herzog, this ballot is highly fallacious.
by seamus on Thu Dec 14, 06 4:42am [+]

I can't give a 'yes' or 'no' answer. I believe that the UN is too incompetent to address the problems of either genocide OR rights of the disabled.

The disabled rights they will draw up will sit gathering dust with the other human rights that they 'declared'.

The only big news in that story is that the EU adopted the laws. But they could have and probably would have implemented such into actual practice without the UN. The UN itself will not enforce the rights of the disabled. The UN just wants to appear virtuous- teh appearance of such is crucial, because in practice they are not much.
by xxxxxxxx on Thu Dec 14, 06 5:51am [+]

seamus - I disagree. Sarcastic perhaps, but not fallacious.

"fight to death to ensure that the concentration camps they are forced in to are wheelchair accessible"

- Obviously it is not true that the UN is pushing for disabled rights as much as they can in Sudan. It is sarcasm. It seems that the UN isn't truly pushing for any rights in Sudan really.
by xxxxxxxx on Thu Dec 14, 06 5:56am [+]

Voted : No, they'd probably prefer the UN did something about the genocide instead
Would be such a lovely thought. Maybe ifwe all got together and bought them an oil well. That might get them noticed.
by Truthseeker013 on Thu Dec 14, 06 3:40pm [+]






About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | Contact
© 2002-2008 BestAndWorst.com All Rights Reserved