Respect for the disabled
Just because it’s a U.N. treaty doesn’t mean it would abdicate American sovereignty.
All people deserve respect and have the right to be treated fairly, regardless of disability. It’s a simple premise, one that 126 nations have endorsed by signing onto a United Nations treaty that encourages all nations to respect the dignity of disabled citizens.
The United States is not among them. Last week, 38 Senate Republicans, driven by tea party-fueled conspiracies about one-world government, prevented the necessary two-thirds majority in the 100-member chamber for ratification.
December 9, 2012 - 7:43 AM
Has anyone at the RTEB done any research into the CRPD or is this another touchy/feely editorial which provides an avenue to beat up on the Tea Party? Ah, the Tea Party, that heinous organization which touts un-America principles such as individual rights, rule of law and limited government. It’s a good thing we have the RTEB and the rest of the journalism free media to protect us from them and similar groups.
Getting back to the UN and the CRPD (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for those of you who remain uninformed), there is no reason for the US to sign on to this treaty. The rights of disabled Americans are well protected by a myriad of laws at both the State and Federal level. The CRPD does not even define disability, stating instead that disability is an “evolving concept.” This is UNspeak for we can change the definitions at will to fit our needs when convenient. Human rights treaties in the past have often morphed well outside of their original intent.
Perhaps the UN should clean up its own house. Recently, the UN added Sudan to its Human Rights Commission. The Sudan?! Here is a country which openly allows female circumcision to occur to about 95% of its young women. Where are NOW and the feminists? What is the UN thinking?
Do some homework, RTEB and perhaps a random act of journalism. Your statement about the US not abdicating sovereignty is not necessarily true. Reading the treaty and figuring out its possible consequenses will be a little more difficult that blaming the Senate vote on the Tea Party.
Symbolism is important. What the nation most admired in the free world does and does not do matters. We should sign the treaty. We cannot lead by an example we are not willing to show.
Exactly the same situation as the small-arms treaty.
#2 Symbolism? As opposed to our sovereignty & Constitution? (You know, that document that is straigtjacketing us).