UN Disabilities treaty

[treis]

@Lobohan

It’s an endorsement. Literally the only reason to *not *sign it is if you have a paranoid fear of the UN.

That’s it. Zero other reason. This is just hysteria, fomented by frightened, ignorant people who don’t know any better.

That’s simply the strawman you’ve created.

[Lobohan]

@treis

That’s simply the strawman you’ve created.

How so? The treaty costs us nothing. Our endorsement adds credibility to it.

The reason the Republicans (including those who know better) voted against the treaty is they are afraid of being primaried by Tea Party types. Rick Santorum led the charge against this treaty because he was afraid that it would put homeschools under the watch of the UN.

So what are you talking about?

[treis]

@Lobohan

How so? The treaty costs us nothing.

Simply not true. It obligates to create reports we didn’t before, and there are several areas where it appears we would be obligated to create new laws and spend money. I’m not sure the legal force the courts would give this, but even if no legal obligation is created, we are still obligating ourselves morally by ratifying the treaty.

[Peremensoe]

So you’re not sure if it’s true.

[treis]

I’m not sure if what is true?

[Peremensoe]

That the treaty costs nothing.

[Lobohan]

@treis

Simply not true. It obligates to create reports we didn’t before, and there are several areas where it appears we would be obligated to create new laws and spend money.

You are wrong. The treaty has no enforcement mechanism.

I’m not sure the legal force the courts would give this, but even if no legal obligation is created, we are still obligating ourselves morally by ratifying the treaty.

We’re obligated morally to do what we’re doing now. The treaty is based on what we do now.

[treis]

@Peremensoe

That the treaty costs nothing.

I clearly said that it obligates us to create reports and, by my reading, new laws as well. That obviously will cost money, time, and effort.

[Lobohan]

@treis

I clearly said that it obligates us to create reports and, by my reading, new laws as well. That obviously will cost money, time, and effort.

And you’re still wrong.

[treis]

@Lobohan

You are wrong. The treaty has no enforcement mechanism.

I didn’t say UN troops would come and enforce the treaty. I said we would be obligated to follow the treaty. Morally, because we are agreeing to do so, and possibly legally because treaties are considered the law of the land according to the constitution.

@Lobohan

We’re obligated morally to do what we’re doing now. The treaty is based on what we do now.

We compile reports to the UN every four years detailing how we treat disabled people in this country?

[Lobohan]

@treis

I didn’t say UN troops would come and enforce the treaty. I said we would be obligated to follow the treaty. Morally, because we are agreeing to do so, and possibly legally because treaties are considered the law of the land according to the constitution.

We already treat the disabled as well as the treaty wants. It’s modeled on the ADA.

We compile reports to the UN every four years detailing how we treat disabled people in this country?

What is the punishment for not submitting such a report?

[Peremensoe]

The Department of Justice and the Congressional Office of Compliance already compile reports, more often than that, on our own ADA compliance. Summaries of these could easily be sent to the UN, to continue our example-setting on the issue. It would cost a couple of staffers a couple hours per year. Plus postage.

[Voyager]

@smiling_bandit

Basically, you can’t win this one because the UN rigged the game in favor of Amazing Stupidity forever ago. For this to have wasted even five seconds of the Senate’s time is cause enough for me to wonder if we can’t pass a law requiring whomever submitted it to be kicked in the vulnerables every hour on the hour until he (or she) begs and pleads that he (or she) will stop being a complete moron. I know this must come as a shock, but our nation’s highest lawmaking body should stop wasting its time on useless verbiage which insults the intelligence of every single living American, while accomplishing nothing whatsoever.

In short, you can’t win this argument precisely because you are outraged - OUTRAGED! - that people don’t want to deal with pointless nonsense. You yourself not only admit, but proudly proclaim, that the treaty does nothing. In which case, throw it in the trash where all meaningless resolutions, half-baked bills, and other examples of emotion masquerading as work belong.

Speaking of wasting time, I trust you have written to your Congresscritter protesting that the House repealed Obamacare, what, 37 times already?

[treis]

@Lobohan

We already treat the disabled as well as the treaty wants. It’s modeled on the ADA.

Again, this doesn’t appear to be true. For example, one of the items is:

(e) Provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and professional sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to buildings and other facilities open to the public;

As far as I know there is no requirement under the ADA to provide any of these.

@Lobohan

What is the punishment for not submitting such a report?

I’m not sure what you are suggesting here. Are you implying that this treaty will cost us nothing because we will ignore every promise we make? That’s a rather dubious contention. Besides, how is ratifying the treaty and then proceeding to ignore it better than just not ratifying it?

[Lobohan]

@Peremensoe

It would cost a couple of staffers a couple hours per year. Plus postage.

Tyranny!

[even_sven]

@Shodan

What is stopping the UN from fixing the refugee camps if the US doesn’t sign this stupid thing?

Regards,
Shodan

What’s to stop the local Safeway from deciding to earn extra money by turning into a discotheque at night? Organizations are generally run by rules and principals. There are funding and other limitations that make it difficult for organizations to do things that have no official support.

[Lobohan]

@treis

Again, this doesn’t appear to be true. For example, one of the items is:

As far as I know there is no requirement under the ADA to provide any of these.

Look up a few lines:

“2. States Parties shall also take appropriate measures to:”

Appropriate measures. It’s not saying that sign language experts have to be in every restroom in the country.

I’m not sure what you are suggesting here. Are you implying that this treaty will cost us nothing because we will ignore every promise we make? That’s a rather dubious contention. Besides, how is ratifying the treaty and then proceeding to ignore it better than just not ratifying it?

I was trying to point out that your fear of the powers of this treaty were unjustified.

It has no powers. It is based on good will and acceptance.

[treis]

@Lobohan

I was trying to point out that your fear of the powers of this treaty were unjustified.

The point is that you are wrong. You are said that we treat the disabled as well as the treaty wants. That simply is not true. There are parts of it that we don’t have laws covering. So if we want to be in compliance we are going to have to pass laws. Nor does this treaty have no cost, like you contend. There are reports to compile, and it is extremely unlikely that it is a couple hour job. To do it right, each point will need to be matched to an applicable law, and the effectiveness of that law needs to be reported. That is a significant effort, and will cost a lot of money.

It seems like you are saying we can simply ignore everything in the treaty. While that is likely true, I would rather just not agree to do something than agree to do it with no intention of actually doing it.

[Peremensoe]

treis, can you link to the treaty text that calls for specific measures beyond the scope of the ADA? Your claims are not in line with any of the reports I’ve heard.

Again, reports on ADA compliance are already routine. I’m sure we generate far more data than the UN actually expects, so the only ‘work’ involved would be editing it down.

[Shodan]

@even_sven

What’s to stop the local Safeway from deciding to earn extra money by turning into a discotheque at night? Organizations are generally run by rules and principals. There are funding and other limitations that make it difficult for organizations to do things that have no official support.

So the US needs to sign this treaty, and then somebody won’t turn a refugee camp into a disco, but if we don’t, then they will. Is that it?

@Lobohan

What is the punishment for not submitting such a report?

So the US should sign the treaty, and then ignore some or all of its provisions. This is setting a good example?

I think we are going about this discussion the wrong way. Somebody give me a good reason why we should sign this, and please be specific.

Regards,
Shodan