GOP channels 'X-Files' paranoia to defeat UN disabilities treaty
In Republican-led sinking of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, creepy TV fears dominate the Senate.
GOP channels 'X-Files' paranoia to defeat UN disabilities treaty
Michael Yudell, Associate Professor, Drexel University School of Public Health
By Michael Yudell
Sometimes I wonder if a subset of Republicans in this country completely misunderstood the classic and creepy 1990s TV show The X-Files. You know, the one where a sinister shadow government works in cahoots with space aliens to facilitate the colonization of planet earth. That series made constant references to a government out of control, seeking to diminish our rights and sacrifice our nation’s sovereignty in preparation for the alien landing. Sound familiar? Save for the alien landing part (for now, at least), that rhetoric sounds an awful lot like the hogwash offered up by many on the far right and, sadly, by those who on Tuesday led the Republican effort in the Senate to vote down the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities.
All but eight Senate Republicans voted to defeat a treaty inspired by and modeled on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the landmark disabilities rights law passed in 1990. With cries of the treaty’s threat to American sovereignty, I’m curious whether these same Senators and other treaty opponents thought The X-Files was a documentary film rather than a dramatic exploration of our fear of the irrational and unfamiliar.
The U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities was first signed by former President George W. Bush (the ADA was signed by his father), and later by President Obama. Its biggest booster – former senator and Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole, now a frail 89 who was recently released from Walter Reed – was wheeled onto the floor of the Senate by his wife, Elizabeth, in a show of support just before voting began.
It didn’t help.
The treaty failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority and went down on a vote of 61-38, with Republicans accounting for all the “No” votes.
What in the name of Fox Mulder happened here? Does this treaty really threaten our sovereignty? And are space aliens involved?
Despite fulmination by some on the far right, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities is a treaty designed “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.” Take a few minutes to read the treaty. It rests on principles of human dignity and decency, calling upon the best of who we are as human beings to protect the vulnerable among us.
The United States, which has the strongest disabilities rights protections in the world as a result of the Americans with Disabilities Act, could have shown its leadership by ratifying the treaty and helping to encourage other nations to commit to the same basic protections by including things like sidewalk ramps and wheelchair-accessible bathrooms.
Instead, the treaty's opponents, led by Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah), stoked irrational fear of so-called foreign bodies deciding what is best for American families. Lee and others preyed particularly on the concerns of parents who homeschool their disabled children. “The Senate rightfully rejected a treaty that could threaten the rights of parents to determine the best education, treatment, and care for their disabled children,” Lee said in a statement released on Tuesday.
This is nonsense.
Early in the day, Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) quashed such fear-mongering, explaining on the floor of the Senate that the treaty “has no recourse in American courts and no effect on American law.” “It really isn't controversial,” Kerry added. “What this treaty says is very simple. It just says that you can't discriminate against the disabled. It says that other countries have to do what we did 22 years ago when we set the example for the world and passed the Americans With Disabilities Act.”
The official statement from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney offered a disappointed, but hopeful look at the Senate’s failure, commending “former Senator Dole and the bipartisan coalition of Senators who worked to secure the treaty resolution’s passage, including Senators Reid, Kerry, Lugar and McCain. We hope the Senate will reconsider this treaty soon in the next Congress. As President Obama declared in a written statement read in tribute to Senator Dole just before the vote, “disability rights should not stop at our nation's shores.”
No, it shouldn’t.
The truth is out there. Somewhere. But not Tuesday in the United States Senate.
Read more about The Public's Health.
Michael, it would help readers to provide a little more detail. This sounds fishy from both sides of the political spectrum. This article strongly implies twice that the CRPD is based on ADA. If it is doing what we already have what is the use of signing the treaty? Should we not be just as suspicious of the motives of the left for signing a treaty that does nothing new as we are of the rights (potentially spurious) claims that signing a law that does nothing new threatens sovereignty? Please investigate the other side of the story.— mmic- It is about two things:
1) Leadership in the world, pointing to our laws as something for others to emulate. By not being on the treaty, we're showing a severe lack of pride in our being the most disabled-friendly nation on earth
2) More importantly, it allows for OUR disabled people to travel the world without as much inconvenience-to-barriers. That's why our own disabled groups backed it. it is important to them to not just help gain accommodation for other disabled folks around the world, but to ensure that our own disabled aren't kept from visiting many of the same places that fully abled people can.— ESchmeltzer - I read the whole treaty and here's my .02:
The treaty does not define "disability" and that term could potentially be applied to groups that we do not currently consider to be mentally or physically disabled. For example, unregistered aliens could arguable be considered politically disabled.
There are a lot of broad statements which sound good, but, to me, seem impractical. For example, the treaty asks for "Full and effective participation and inclusion in society." That is much broader than a requirement of "reasonable accommodation," which I believe is a foundation of US law.
Somebody needs to go through the treaty, section by section, line by line, and explain what it means. However, that would probably be a very boring document.— phillyguy36 - Right up there in section 2, under definitions:
"Reasonable accommodation" means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms"
And under Section 5:
3. In order to promote equality and eliminate discrimination, States Parties shall take all appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided.
So yes, people have gone through this, line by line, and it is totally consistent with laws we have on the books already! It affects NOTHING in the US. Yet, our absence from the treaty speaks a lot about the US' waning ability to lead, due to crazies hijacking our government.— ESchmeltzer - Have you read the treaty? I'd guess not, since you appear to ignore the relevant parts, that I found with a quick skim reading of it. (and as the above commenter points out, there is a lot in there that isn't possible to completely understand the implications of with a quick skim)
I'd guess the so-called "hogwash" has to do with Article 23, sections 4 and 5:
4. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, EXCEPT WHEN competent AUTHORITIES subject to judicial review DETERMINE, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, THAT SUCH SEPARATION IS NECESSARY for the best interests of the child [...]
5. States Parties shall, where the immediate family is unable to care for a child with disabilities, undertake every effort to provide alternative care within the wider family, and failing that, within the community in a family setting.
I don't want the state determining what is in my child's "best interest", I'm quite capable of doing that myself, thank you.
No tin-foil hats here, just common sense: we don't need the government invading our lives and deciding what "care" is appropriate for our families.
As the first commenter says, if it isn't a law, and doesn't affect us, then it shouldn't really matter to you if it is voted down.— jondaley - Are you for real?! REALLY? I'll give you a few minutes to take that comment back. No?
— ESchmeltzer - Are you for real?! REALLY? I'll give you a few minutes to take that comment back. No?
Still no?
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES.
America's states have, at times, taken children into custody FOR YEARS. My God, we are really operating in a non-reality now, aren't we?— ESchmeltzer - @phillyguy36, from the preamble...
"e. Recognizing that disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others."— publicshealth - @jondaley. State laws, in the United States, can make determinations of the "best interest of the child." The treaty changes nothing.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/best_interest.pdf— publicshealth - You are lying. 100% Wrong. - A US Treaty ratified by 2/3 of the Senate signed into law supersedes State law and will affect everyone.
http://tinyurl.com/a99bpja— dickie L - "...subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures...."
I.E., state laws and agencies that are already on the books. Nothing gets "superseded."— ESchmeltzer - Why do you want the commies at the UN to take away your Constitutional rights anyway ????? Article 18 - Liberty of movement and nationality - 2. Children with disabilities shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by their parents.— dickie L
- Now you're against children having birth certificates (registration), a name, a declared home nation, and (as far as possible, i.e., not an adoption situation) have their parents take care of them!??
Can you tell me which of those things aren't already enshrined in our laws? Wow. I mean, really, just wow.— ESchmeltzer - It is amazing and disgusting that over a third of Congress and "people" in the USA are controlled by their extreme paranoid right-wing (t-party type) mis-led ideas. They cling to their guns astrology comic books, the sun rotates around the earth mentality - to such an extent that they would find some "rationale" to stop a treaty whose only goal is to help people with disabilities when traveling around the world.
We need to take some useless state, (say Texas) forcefully remove it from the union, and send all these paranoid nutcases there and provide each of them their own black helicopter and a martian stuffed doll to flog themselves with from morning till night, and a megaphone to scream "you can't take away my guns", "evolution and global warming are heresy", and "the boil on my crotch is the President's fault" as often as they choose.— Thom Paine - Why is it beneficial to the US to hand over power to the UN on such programs? This would have required states establish programs and facility modifications that have nothing to do with providing services for the disabled. The UN is extremely biased against the US and is not above requiring compliance that would bankrupt businesses, cities and states with NO provision for redress. Remember, a war was once declared and fought against England over "taxation without representation." But, it's not likely that they teach that in Philly schools these days.— Bruce A.
