Lucille
11-27-2012, 10:39 AM
Today's fresh hell:
Reid: Senate to take up disability treaty while defense amendments are negotiated
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/269417-reid-senate-to-take-up-disability-treaty-while-defense-amendments-are-negotiated
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Monday that the Senate would move toward votes on a treaty protecting the rights of people with disabilities because Republicans still aren’t in agreement over amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act.
Reid said that while Republicans discuss what they want to do on the defense authorization, he intends bring up the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on Tuesday.
Republicans have expressed concern over the treaty, saying they don’t want international treaties writing U.S. law. But advocates for the treaty have said it’s based on the American Disabilities Act, granting people with disabilities equal rights, meaning U.S. law already follows the treaty.
[...]
Reid said if cloture is not invoked on the motion to proceed to the "Carcieri Fix" bill Wednesday, he’d continue to work with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on an agreement to move forward on the defense authorization bill, S. 3254 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3254).
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is filibustering the defense bill, which would set defense policy and authorize more than $600 billion in Pentagon spending, until he gets a vote on his amendment limiting indefinite detention.
More (http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201205250.asp) on that treaty:
Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.
2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.
3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.
4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.
5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.
6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.
7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.
Additionally, under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.
8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.
9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.
10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.
HSLDA urges homeschoolers and all freedom-loving Americans to contact their U.S. senators and urge them to oppose this dangerous UN treaty.
Of course, if one opposes it, then one hates people with disabilities.
Reid: Senate to take up disability treaty while defense amendments are negotiated
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/269417-reid-senate-to-take-up-disability-treaty-while-defense-amendments-are-negotiated
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Monday that the Senate would move toward votes on a treaty protecting the rights of people with disabilities because Republicans still aren’t in agreement over amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act.
Reid said that while Republicans discuss what they want to do on the defense authorization, he intends bring up the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on Tuesday.
Republicans have expressed concern over the treaty, saying they don’t want international treaties writing U.S. law. But advocates for the treaty have said it’s based on the American Disabilities Act, granting people with disabilities equal rights, meaning U.S. law already follows the treaty.
[...]
Reid said if cloture is not invoked on the motion to proceed to the "Carcieri Fix" bill Wednesday, he’d continue to work with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on an agreement to move forward on the defense authorization bill, S. 3254 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3254).
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is filibustering the defense bill, which would set defense policy and authorize more than $600 billion in Pentagon spending, until he gets a vote on his amendment limiting indefinite detention.
More (http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201205250.asp) on that treaty:
Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.
2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.
3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.
4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.
5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.
6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.
7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.
Additionally, under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.
8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.
9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.
10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.
HSLDA urges homeschoolers and all freedom-loving Americans to contact their U.S. senators and urge them to oppose this dangerous UN treaty.
Of course, if one opposes it, then one hates people with disabilities.