I was recently shown an article by a Facebook friend when I criticized the decision to not sign the UN Disabilities Rights treaty. This article is at least misleading and one could reasonably say that the author lied outright to mislead. Here is a link to the article.
http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201205250.asp
Following is my response to reasons the author claims the act would disenfranchise the American parent. I responded to each claim by number.
1. State
sovereignty can not be signed away as is apparent in article 10 of the bill of rights.
And the act itself states that "There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the human
rights and fundamental freedoms recognized or existing in any State
Party to the present Convention pursuant
to law, conventions, regulation or custom on the pretext that the
present Convention does not recognize such rights or freedoms or that it
recognizes them to a lesser extent" A4, 4. The part he is referring to
"The provisions of the present Convention shall extend to all parts of
federal States without any limitations or exceptions." A4,5 means that
you cannot agree to parts of the convention and not others. IE the
convention cannot be signed in part, but must be signed in whole.
2. It does not demand this. It says it all here. http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=264.
All of those things are generally already a law in the US as it is. The treaty
is based off of one of our laws. Yet again another country cannot
dictate our laws as is in the constitution. This treaty would influence the laws that congress considers, not let the UN make the laws. The author of this article does not seem to understand the
difference.
3. The
definition of discrimination is as follows "The unjust or prejudicial
treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the
grounds of race, age, or sex." Websters Online. The treaty goes out of its way within its
language to state that only PUBLIC areas need to be effected. The
authors statement is a broad generalization and seems to imply they did
not read the entire treaty.
4. Read
the above. The way the treaty reads is not that specific, the way that
the local government implements the treaty is up to that country. I
would like to add that the author is using a blatant persuasion tactic,
fear. They are trying to imply right to practice your religion will be
impeded on. It is a good tactic but not an ethical one.
5. "With
regard to economic, social and cultural rights, each State Party
undertakes to take measures to the maximum of its available resources
and, where needed, within the framework of international cooperation,
with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of these
rights, without prejudice to those obligations contained in the present
Convention that are immediately applicable according to international
law." This clearly states that the budget would be in control of the
individual state. The author now ignores part of the article for their
own purpose. If resources are "Available" that means they are not
already being used for something (war, infrastructure ect...).
6)We
are not dealing with a separate treaty. We are dealing with this one.
As this treaty specifically states "States Parties reaffirm that every
human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary
measures to ensure its effective enjoyment
by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others." the author
is clearly trying to use another fear argument.
7)"In
all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests
of the child shall be a primary consideration." A7-2 The author is again
using a fear argument. I have found few of the authors arguments to be
logical. This might be because they cannot come up with one. In addition this treaty merely says (all through it A24 most obviously) that
assistance be available to the public but having assistance available does not make it mandatory.
8)The Us could not be forced to this. This means that America
(or other nations) CAN help less developed nations that sign the
treaty. Yet another fear argument as we all know what the economy looks
like right now.
9)
This is an ignorant statement. Anything that would limit torture would
read like this. There are still countries where children with
disabilities are locked in a room and never let out or killed because the parents feel they cannot care for the child. Hell, it still
happens here although rarely.
10)Article
25 is on Health not Education. However in article 24 it states that
equal education has to be AVAILABLE not MANDATORY. One could logically
argue that NOT letting disabled children be home schooled would be
discriminatory and therefore not correct under this treaty. In addition
this treaty does not override any of the others he mentioned therefore a
restatement of rights would be redundant.
It is my ultimate conclusion that either the author did not read the entire treaty or purposefully ignored sections as a persuasion tactic.
If anyone wants to read the treaty for themselves here is the website :D
http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=259
